My faith doesn’t make me perfect, it makes me forgiven.
Originally Posted by Dr.Lecter
Professing a belief if god is one thing, trying to legislate that belief is another completely.
That seems to be what was rejected during this election cycle.
I said you need to strive to better than everyone else. I didn't say you needed to be better than everyone else. But you gotta try. That's what character is. It's in the try.
The Bills Make Me Wanna Below
1) "Marriage" is institutionalized as the fundamental atomic unit of the civil society with the goal of perpetuation of same. "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron, since there is no fulfillment of the institutional goal of propagation. It carries as much validity as "Goat Marriage." It is not incumbent on the civil society to break with established tradition, belief and wisdom, to accomodate this definition. This is not to say the civil society wishes to abolish the practice - just that it is not "marriage."
2) Nowhere in this nation is a woman's right to choose to not get pregnant being denied.
The civil society indeed legislates morality, or murder would be legal and I'd be allowed to strangle people who cannot form a cogent argument. (No inferences toward anyone here)
Now here follows the outlier examples, exceptional cases and sundry strawmen...
Last edited by Ralonzo; 11-11-2012 at 09:20 AM.
His words carry lies that would break a less deceitful man's jaw. He's received a Nobel Peace Prize just for campaigning. He bowls 37.
He is the Most Intolerable Man In The World.
"I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I prefer to put it on my $6 trillion tab. Stay stupid, my friends."
Have you ever heard of groups of people protesting marriage of infertile heterosexuals? I doubt you have.
When you use procreation as the cornerstone to define what you feel is a legitimate marriage, that cornerstone crumbles.
So now with the election over there are 4 ways to interpret Pat Robertson's statements.
1) God lied to Pat either because he is not infallible or because he hates Robertson so much he wants to screw with him.
2) Pat Robertson thinks he hears the voice of God when instead he himself is mentally ill.
3) Robertson knows that he doesn't talk to God and that his lies are wearing thin
4) Robertson really doesn't even know if God exists, but as long as people believe, there's money to be made & he's sure as hell (?) not going to stop taking their money.
"'Clean up your room.', 'Stand up straight.', 'Pick up your feet.', 'Take it like a man.', 'Be nice to your sister.', 'Don't mix beer and wine, ever.'. Oh yeah, 'Don't drive on the railroad track.'"
"Eh, Phil. That's one I happen to agree with."
There is no reasonable non-religious argument to not allow gay marriage, and preventing others from doing something because of your personal religious beliefs is wrong. It's such an easy argument it boggles my mind that anyone could be against it.
What's being marked "True" is that those experiments actually took place, not that the results were accurate or revealing.What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea that his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more.
Also, homosexuals can procreate, just not with each other.
There are, however, many places where people fight against any sort of fact-based sex education and work to prevent the distribution of contraceptives. The staggering ignorance some people display over how to get pregnant is a result of that. My friend is a doctor, and during one of her rotations a woman asked her if she could get pregnant from giving her boyfriend a handjob in a jacuzzi.2) Nowhere in this nation is a woman's right to choose to not get pregnant being denied.
We do legislate morality, but murder is the dumbest example you could have picked. Crimes with victims will always be illegal, that's not "morality" that's just building a society that doesn't crumble into chaos. Murder is the most grievous violation of someone else's body and rights that one can perform. Criminalizing gambling and public nudity are actual examples of morality laws with no express victims.The civil society indeed legislates morality, or murder would be legal and I'd be allowed to strangle people who cannot form a cogent argument. (No inferences toward anyone here)
Billszone 2013 Prediction Contest winner!
We are simply discussing the definition of "marriage," and I recounted the etymology; that is to say, what it means and where it comes from. It's held different meanings in different societies at different points of history. In our own, it has traditionally carried the particular meaning of one man and one woman. This has occurred over time for numerous reasons. Let's not get into those right now, since I'd like to tie this back to the thread title:
If the moral landscape has changed, why has the moral landscape changed?
To get the discussion rolling using the topic at hand: You might liken this to Obama's position on gay marriage - it has "evolved". What an accurate word. As Darwinism has served to unmoor most people nowadays from belief in Biblical creation, so it occurs with the Biblical definition of marriage. We have outgrown such myths and stories, and in dismissing them as superstitious lore, we also lose the lessons passed to us from collected history.
To me, the underpinnings of the collapse of most civil societies comes down to hubris - the collective belief that your generation is exceptional, with special knowledge and insight, and thus gives impetus to the rejection of the mores, practices and ideals that built the civil society to begin with. It's not a big surprise, it's who we are. The conflation of knowledge with wisdom is a mighty thin line.
Last edited by Ralonzo; 11-11-2012 at 10:30 AM.