E
edwest211
Guest
We did. It was on the ballot. It failed. So the Supreme Court, not the will of the people, was brought in later.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
edwest211
Guest
Fake term: marriage business. This is about normalizing deviant sexual behaviors.
E
edwest211
Guest
Exactly. Their minds are being spoon-fed lies and some become indifferent. Being indifferent is a threat.
2
2towers
Guest
You are getting really uncharitable with your posts here ed. This is becoming a pattern with you on my posts as well. You might want to think about the way you are treating people here.
J
josh987654321
Guest
They also eat their young and a whole host of other things. Id think very carefully before using animals as a road map for human behavior and society. If you’re measuring stick is that of a wild beast, then It’s very concerning where society is headed.It turns out animals, humans included, have same sex sexual contact.
Thank you for reading.
Last edited:
V
vsedriver
Guest
I agree, I grew up in the 60s. My mother gave me the talk. One thing I see not talked about today and the one thing I talked about to my sons was that sex lead to baby. You have sex with a girl, start picking out baby names. I made it real to them. The woman has all the power, she can kill your baby or have you support that baby till he/she is 18 and she’ll probably not stay with you and end up with another guy or more and your child will always be the odd kid out. You won’t get to raise that child like you were raised. And you risk getting an STD the more ‘partners’ you have.And Sex Education promoted promiscuity, and “mom and dad are just too embarrassed.” Baloney. A ton of baloney. Lame excuse.
Sex education shouldn’t be about the mechanics. That is easily learned. It should be about the responsibilities and the effects it has on the individuals. A sexual relationship is a unique bonding relationship. Breaking it and trying to remake it over and over with a different person deeply damages us, especially women.
F
Foreign_Grid
Guest
I would first ask them why it is wrong to hurt a person.
It seems off topic, but get them to stick with you. If they question even the morality of considering such a question, tell them that you have an answer to the question already, but you want to hear THEIR answer.
Then it will probably go along the lines of some emotional mumbo jumbo or they will cite evolutionary theory as a reason why is is in the best interest of man to live in a peaceful society or they will even say that conscious pain is evil and should not be inflicted on conscious beings.
Tell them then, that that sounds fine out loud , but it is logically incoherent. And here’s why. First of all the emotional arguments will have no substance and generally come from a relativistic point of view.
It’s in the best interest of man to live in a peaceful society yes, but it is also in man’s best interest to dominate his peers so that he gets an advantage. The result of this is a society built on Machiavellian principles of conduct and morality, in which there is not a precise moral code but rather what is ‘good’ in the Machiavellian philosophy is to be Prudent, to have Virtú. And this means, to learn to be good and to learn not to be good according to the situation. Alternatively this philosophy of Machiavelli is what began the propagation of the fierceness in business and politics in history. This code also maintains that it is the best interest of man to live in a peaceful society, but under the control and whims of the Prince. This also meant that the Prince could and should do whatever he could to create peace, even if that means oppressing the weak and killing all who stood in the way of the Prince, even the innocent. If it is for the sake of the reigning power, all things go. But preferably, in order to maintain the better nature of the people, a Prince should appear to be moral, but a Prince should not BE Moral, otherwise they will be taken advantage of. So then, Justice is just the whim of the strong. Justice is relative then. Therefore, by the theory of evolution it is not really wrong to hurt another human, it’s only just disadvantageous for the majority of society for the most part until people start to get ambitious (which they always do). We are just a random conglomeration of atoms after all, with nothing intrinsically special.
As to the idea that pain in conscious beings should be avoided, to that I say, what is pain? What is consciousness? Why is consciousness intrinsically special? Why is pain such an abomination if we are to think of it rationally? Pain is just synapses firing. A consciousness in the atheistic scientific sense, is just awareness that will eventually fade. What is intrinsically special about either? Nothing. They are not beautiful, they are not true (in the atheistic sense), they are just an illusion of evolution.
It seems off topic, but get them to stick with you. If they question even the morality of considering such a question, tell them that you have an answer to the question already, but you want to hear THEIR answer.
Then it will probably go along the lines of some emotional mumbo jumbo or they will cite evolutionary theory as a reason why is is in the best interest of man to live in a peaceful society or they will even say that conscious pain is evil and should not be inflicted on conscious beings.
Tell them then, that that sounds fine out loud , but it is logically incoherent. And here’s why. First of all the emotional arguments will have no substance and generally come from a relativistic point of view.
It’s in the best interest of man to live in a peaceful society yes, but it is also in man’s best interest to dominate his peers so that he gets an advantage. The result of this is a society built on Machiavellian principles of conduct and morality, in which there is not a precise moral code but rather what is ‘good’ in the Machiavellian philosophy is to be Prudent, to have Virtú. And this means, to learn to be good and to learn not to be good according to the situation. Alternatively this philosophy of Machiavelli is what began the propagation of the fierceness in business and politics in history. This code also maintains that it is the best interest of man to live in a peaceful society, but under the control and whims of the Prince. This also meant that the Prince could and should do whatever he could to create peace, even if that means oppressing the weak and killing all who stood in the way of the Prince, even the innocent. If it is for the sake of the reigning power, all things go. But preferably, in order to maintain the better nature of the people, a Prince should appear to be moral, but a Prince should not BE Moral, otherwise they will be taken advantage of. So then, Justice is just the whim of the strong. Justice is relative then. Therefore, by the theory of evolution it is not really wrong to hurt another human, it’s only just disadvantageous for the majority of society for the most part until people start to get ambitious (which they always do). We are just a random conglomeration of atoms after all, with nothing intrinsically special.
As to the idea that pain in conscious beings should be avoided, to that I say, what is pain? What is consciousness? Why is consciousness intrinsically special? Why is pain such an abomination if we are to think of it rationally? Pain is just synapses firing. A consciousness in the atheistic scientific sense, is just awareness that will eventually fade. What is intrinsically special about either? Nothing. They are not beautiful, they are not true (in the atheistic sense), they are just an illusion of evolution.
F
Foreign_Grid
Guest
So then, what do these people fight for? If it is not wrong to hurt someone, then their whole liberal agenda is all for naught! They fight against hate and violence, but we have proven by their own mindset that these things aren’t especially wrong. They fight ghosts, illusions, something to make it seem that their life is worth something more but is actually based on a logical fallacy. If they accept this, then they would be better off leaving you alone, because it’s not worth it anyway.
Now the answer. There is only one way it can be one answer to the question “Why is it wrong to hurt people.”
Think about it this way, Jesus once said that you can’t serve two masters.
The one master being God, and the other master being the devil.
Now, what makes one master superior to the other besides power?
For those who have been dead in sin, you probably know. One master, is the good master. He treats you right, even as His slave you are crowned with fine gold and shackled with jewels. He teaches you how to be truly FREE and by that I mean to be able to truly LOVE. And this is good, because it leads to construction not destruction, healing not hurting, courage not fear, self-mastery not weakness.
The other master is a bad master. He tears you up and laughs at your destruction. The more you become what you were not meant to be, the more you are destroyed and the more you are chained to his wickedness and the darker everything becomes.
So ask them this, why is it that one master is bad and the other is good? Intrinsically I mean.
I already gave the answer.
Because one master created us for an end, and that end which we were created for will bring us true freedom and by that end and by that creation by merit of the One who made us we are given true DIGNITY. And so our end is intrinsically DIGNIFIED. To be pure souls in communion with the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea” Because they would have injured someone’s capacity to love, forgive, to be what the God in heaven made them to be. That is why it is wrong to hurt someone, because we are harming their intrinsic dignity as CHILDREN OF THE LIVING GOD.
And that is why the Bad master is a BAD master, because he takes us from God. Because he gives us an end that is not our own, he destroys and perverts that which should be as created good by God.
Now the answer. There is only one way it can be one answer to the question “Why is it wrong to hurt people.”
Think about it this way, Jesus once said that you can’t serve two masters.
The one master being God, and the other master being the devil.
Now, what makes one master superior to the other besides power?
For those who have been dead in sin, you probably know. One master, is the good master. He treats you right, even as His slave you are crowned with fine gold and shackled with jewels. He teaches you how to be truly FREE and by that I mean to be able to truly LOVE. And this is good, because it leads to construction not destruction, healing not hurting, courage not fear, self-mastery not weakness.
The other master is a bad master. He tears you up and laughs at your destruction. The more you become what you were not meant to be, the more you are destroyed and the more you are chained to his wickedness and the darker everything becomes.
So ask them this, why is it that one master is bad and the other is good? Intrinsically I mean.
I already gave the answer.
Because one master created us for an end, and that end which we were created for will bring us true freedom and by that end and by that creation by merit of the One who made us we are given true DIGNITY. And so our end is intrinsically DIGNIFIED. To be pure souls in communion with the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea” Because they would have injured someone’s capacity to love, forgive, to be what the God in heaven made them to be. That is why it is wrong to hurt someone, because we are harming their intrinsic dignity as CHILDREN OF THE LIVING GOD.
And that is why the Bad master is a BAD master, because he takes us from God. Because he gives us an end that is not our own, he destroys and perverts that which should be as created good by God.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I would stick to arguments that same-sex marriage undermines the foundations of Western culture. When you change something this huge, there are tons of risks. I sometimes use the analogy with climate change. Since the results of climate change are unknown and potentially catastrophic, we want to scale back causes of climate change. If you look at the results of the sexual revolution so far, they are pretty destructive. It wouldn’t be surprising if gay marriage brought things further in that direction.
(At the same time, it may be that gay marriages could be relatively stabilizing, for individuals who are gay. There’s no contradiction between saying that a law is overall harmful and saying that it could make some people’s lives more stable).
(At the same time, it may be that gay marriages could be relatively stabilizing, for individuals who are gay. There’s no contradiction between saying that a law is overall harmful and saying that it could make some people’s lives more stable).
2
2towers
Guest
I sure don’t know where he got that from the post he was replying to.
V
vsedriver
Guest
no, my comment was about what the state says is legal and what isn’t. Making something legal doesn’t necessarily make it normal. It just make it ‘legal’.Fake term: marriage business. This is about normalizing deviant sexual behaviors.
of course, due to the lack of education in logic and philosophy many can’t tell the difference between legal and normal.
F
Foreign_Grid
Guest
Lastly, our bodies are made for an end, correct?
“Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?”(Aristotle, Book I Nicomachean Ethics)
“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”
(Aristotle Metaphysica 10f-1045a)
Female and male, complimentary and able to bring into the world and rear children. This is the natural law of the philosophers. So then is not the end being perverted in SSM? Are we not helping people, but furthering them from what they were made to be? And in so, as we have established, are we not hurting them?
And as we have established as well, is that not wrong?
“Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?”(Aristotle, Book I Nicomachean Ethics)
“The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”
(Aristotle Metaphysica 10f-1045a)
Female and male, complimentary and able to bring into the world and rear children. This is the natural law of the philosophers. So then is not the end being perverted in SSM? Are we not helping people, but furthering them from what they were made to be? And in so, as we have established, are we not hurting them?
And as we have established as well, is that not wrong?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
And in the past, it would have been rejected in Australia too. Times have changed. The bulk of opinions have changed.We did. It was on the ballot. It failed. So the Supreme Court, not the will of the people, was brought in later.
E
edwest211
Guest
You are very right. By damaging the natural family by increasing temptations and convincing people that any deviation from what is truly normal is OK. A lifelong commitment, a stable home. These are the things that benefit both parents and children. And instead of listening to troublemakers, listening to your parents (I’m not referring to abuse) and loving them, even till their old age. My mother told me what her mother told her father after a party had run its course: “As long as I have breath in my body, I am still your mother.” She was to be respected. If I did something wrong in the early 1960s, a total stranger could tell me: “Young man, you should be ashamed of yourself.” and I would not be offended.
But destroy the natural family for sex and this is what happens. I read the not too old comments: “The heteros mucked it up so why not let the gays give it a try?” I wonder how many know that after the start of campaigning for gay marriage there was also a campaign for gay divorce.
Marriage should not be entered into lightly. When I was younger, I sat down with the father of the young lady I wanted to marry. That’s what young men did. He was your age once. He needed no explanation. He got it. My friend did the same thing. When couples join together in marriage, their families join together with them. For a while, I suffered through movies where the in-laws were portrayed as these constant meddlers - better to be rid of, as opposed to the parents who raised the woman you loved. Once enough bad ideas were purposely circulated, there was only the sex. Like having the icing from a cake but no cake. No solid foundation to be passed from father to son. No intergenerational ties.
But destroy the natural family for sex and this is what happens. I read the not too old comments: “The heteros mucked it up so why not let the gays give it a try?” I wonder how many know that after the start of campaigning for gay marriage there was also a campaign for gay divorce.
Marriage should not be entered into lightly. When I was younger, I sat down with the father of the young lady I wanted to marry. That’s what young men did. He was your age once. He needed no explanation. He got it. My friend did the same thing. When couples join together in marriage, their families join together with them. For a while, I suffered through movies where the in-laws were portrayed as these constant meddlers - better to be rid of, as opposed to the parents who raised the woman you loved. Once enough bad ideas were purposely circulated, there was only the sex. Like having the icing from a cake but no cake. No solid foundation to be passed from father to son. No intergenerational ties.
E
edwest211
Guest
The date on the calendar changes nothing. Only people change things through lobbying, influence peddling and constant campaigning. I recall reading in the newspaper when same-sex marriage was defeated in state after state: “We didn’t have enough money.” or “We didn’t have enough volunteers.” or both.
R
Rau
Guest
It likely has seen popular opinion (which is all democratic voting counts) change significantly.The date on the calendar changes nothing.
What year were those votes rejecting SSM held? Is California Proposition 8 (2008) one of those votes? That was 9 years ago and was won by a narrow margin of 52%/48%.
Last edited:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
These arguments successfully refute the pro-same sex “marriage” side.
These arguments successfully refute the pro-same sex “marriage” side.
F
Foreign_Grid
Guest
“At least so far as bonobos go, the research suggests that same-sex activity is used as either a means of bonding or of peacemaking. But really, does it have to have a purpose at all? Why is that important?”
Can we really reduce human relationships to animal-like peacemaking rituals?
Can we really reduce human relationships to animal-like peacemaking rituals?
B
buffalo
Guest
That is their argument, since it happens in nature it is good. Most confuse primal behavior in nature with natural law.
F
Foreign_Grid
Guest
@niceatheist
Natural Law is a bit more complex than “it just happens in nature”
Rape, ‘prostitution’, infanticide, and canabalism also “just happens in nature” in order to further the propagation of “the strongest.”
That doesn’t make it good for us.
Why? Because humans have inherent dignity bestowed on us by a Creator that is made manifest in our immortal souls. And it’s that dignity that allows us to have the beautiful thing called ‘rights.’
If there is no God, there are no rights.
Natural Law is a bit more complex than “it just happens in nature”
Rape, ‘prostitution’, infanticide, and canabalism also “just happens in nature” in order to further the propagation of “the strongest.”
That doesn’t make it good for us.
Why? Because humans have inherent dignity bestowed on us by a Creator that is made manifest in our immortal souls. And it’s that dignity that allows us to have the beautiful thing called ‘rights.’
If there is no God, there are no rights.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.