musser Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Oh oh I think you have just refuted your own argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The government should absolutely no interest in regulating an institution based on how two people "feel" about each other. Marriage between men and women are not regulated on the basis of love for one another but rather for the protection of children and the propagation of society. When homosexuals can start naturally procreating then I'd be all for the state regulating the institution of marriage. Until then....they are out of their element. Just curious... Would you also be against the marriage of a man and woman if neither were able to have children? By your view of marriage, how would their marriage be different than that of a homosexual marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Just curious... Would you also be against the marriage of a man and woman if neither were able to have children? By your view of marriage, how would their marriage be different than that of a homosexual marriage? Laws are not based on the exception which is exactly what your scenario is; the exception to the norm. Tell me, if marriage is first and foremost about 'love,' what interest is there for the state? It has zero interest in who we choose to love. The argument for homosexuality for years was that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms...I agree when it comes to two consenting adults. If you're tampering with the institution based on people's emotions just get out of it altogether, dissolve the institution for everyone where the state is concerned. It began as a religious institution and maybe it needs to remain that way. Either way, it is children who suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Laws are not based on the exception which is exactly what your scenario is; the exception to the norm. I didn't ask you about laws. Reread the questions. My questions were not about the law or gov't. Because you brought up a homosexual's lack of natural ability to procreate I asked: Would you also be against the marriage of a man and woman if neither were able to have children? By your view of marriage, how would their marriage be different than that of a homosexual marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I can say the same of morality that I can of law. Morality isn't based on exception. Man+woman is the natural definition of marriage so no, I am not opposed to their marriage. And as far as the state is concerned, there are still societal benefits to this relationship. This is why the state has an interest. What societal benefit is there from a homosexual relationship? What is it about the "marriage" label that they desire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I can say the same of morality that I can of law. Morality isn't based on exception. Man+woman is the natural definition of marriage so no, I am not opposed to their marriage. And as far as the state is concerned, there are still societal benefits to this relationship. This is why the state has an interest. What societal benefit is there from a homosexual relationship? What is it about the "marriage" label that they desire? THERE IT IS....I was waiting for that word to pop up..."morality". This word "morality" is truly the last refuge of the hypocrite. People want to spout all kinds of stuff about their reasoning for opposing gay marriage but it all comes down to hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with states rights. Nothing to do with the gov't being involved in emotional issues. Or staying in or out of people's bedrooms. It has EVERYTHING to do with "I don't like it so they shouldn't have it" and "I was not brought up that way so they shouldn't do that". Usually those opposed to gay marriage are OK with the gov't keeping these couples from marrying. But the moment gov't wants to ban something these hypocrites covet, then they start yelling, "Less gov't! No Big Brother! Less Gov't!" Well, I'm not such a hypocrite that I'm going to judge others because they may sin differently than I do. I'm not such a hypocrite that I only want gov't banning things I don't like. I'm not such a hypocrite that I can't see there are societal benefits to both gay and heterosexual marriages. And I'm certainly not such a hypocrite that I would publicly cry out against others for disobeying portions of the bible that I naturally abide by, while every day I ignore that there are far more disobeying the portions of the bible this society has chosen to ignore. So many pulling the morality card on this issue like they: Don't lust after women. Don't lie. Don't take the lord's name in vain. Don't covet their neighbors' goods. And on and on and on and on and on.... I'm not even a religious man and I find the hypocrisy distasteful. I probably never could get into religion. I am too open minded, too forgiving, and not nearly judgmental enough. Conversations like this are over the minute someone brings up "morality" as an argument against these issues because it tells me more about the speaker than about those they accuse of being immoral. You can't be reasonable with a person willing to go into the dark realms of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 You say "People want to spout all kinds of stuff about their reasoning for opposing gay marriage but it all comes down to hypocrisy." and then later you say "Well, I'm not such a hypocrite that I'm going to judge others because they may sin differently than I do." Do you see the inconsistency in these two statements. Calling someone or a groups of people hypocrites is about as judgmental as it gets. It has nothing to do with states rights. Nothing to do with the gov't being involved in emotional issues. Or staying in or out of people's bedrooms. It has EVERYTHING to do with "I don't like it so they shouldn't have it" and "I was not brought up that way so they shouldn't do that".Wrong again, when I say "state" I am not talking about the rights of individual states to govern but rather the entire government being referred to as 'the state;" that is the institution itself. Usually those opposed to gay marriage are OK with the gov't keeping these couples from marrying. But the moment gov't wants to ban something these hypocrites covet, then they start yelling, "Less gov't! No Big Brother! Less Gov't!" I'm not such a hypocrite that I only want gov't banning things I don't like. I'm not such a hypocrite that I can't see there are societal benefits to both gay and heterosexual marriages. And I'm certainly not such a hypocrite that I would publicly cry out against others for disobeying portions of the bible that I naturally abide by, while every day I ignore that there are far more disobeying the portions of the bible this society has chosen to ignore.This is exactly what you make yourself to be by calling others hypocrites while claiming not to be "judgmental" So many pulling the morality card on this issue like they: Don't lust after women. Don't lie. Don't take the lord's name in vain. Don't covet their neighbors' goods. And on and on and on and on and on.... I'm not even a religious man and I find the hypocrisy distasteful. Except in yourself of course because you're just better then they are! (please not the sarcarm) I probably never could get into religion. I am too open minded, too forgiving, and not nearly judgmental enough. Except against those with whom you disagree apparently. Conversations like this are over the minute someone brings up "morality" as an argument against these issues because it tells me more about the speaker than about those they accuse of being immoral. You can't be reasonable with a person willing to go into the dark realms of hypocrisy.And they are not when the "hypocrite" or "you're just being judgmental" cards are played? Your argument here is what is called a "straw man;" a logical fallacy. Since you really have no defense for your position or legitimate argument against another's position, you attack the character of the person holding the stance you disagree with. Notice how you didn't answer the questions I posed but instead indirectly accused me of being hypocritical when, in fact, you don't personally know me or my view of myself. You see, I'm a sinner of the worst kind and i know it but this doesn't somehow preclude me from calling sin sin nor does it make me judgmental. I've never said the person who practices homosexuality was going to hell specifically for that reason nor did I say i'm a better person than they because of it. So, call it a morality card if you will but, please, please I implore you to step down off your high horse before you do!Have a wonderful day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Oh and do you mind answering my questions because they really are legitimate questions that we need to answer before changing the laws that have governed the institution of marriage in this country for a long, long time. What is the states interest in the institution of marriage? What societal benefits are there from homosexual couples being "married"? What is it about the label of being "married" do they desire? And if you disagree with me on the issue, fine but let's not resort to further name calling. Argue the issue and if you can't or won't then by all means, respectfully bow out. No need to attack me personally but, then again, I won't be offended in any way if you do because I'm not a member of the thought police nor will it ultimately make any difference in life since I don't answer to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmkraz Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 It got a little ugly towards the end, but otherwise a good discussion with well explained opinions and beliefs. I didn't change my views but I learned a few things. Back to vending for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 One other thought, if someone steals from you or your spouse cheats on you, what right do you have to say they were wrong? In fact, put this into actual practice. Cheat on your spouse or significant other and then tell them they can't be mad or judgmental because you're just sinning differently than them and let me know how that works out if you wouldn't mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I won't answer your questions arkhusker. This conversation was over for me once things went into areas of hypocrisy that are beyond the limits of my own hypocrisy. My post referring to my bow-out is quoted below...since you missed it the first time. Conversations like this are over the minute someone brings up "morality" as an argument against these issues because it tells me more about the speaker than about those they accuse of being immoral. You can't be reasonable with a person willing to go into the dark realms of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musser Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 This Country was founded on the Principle of Acceptance. Enshrined in our Constitution is the idea that the new Government was formed for the express purpose of ensuring that those who think differently from the "norm" are protected. Thus, our laws have broadened and evolved over the years to spread the protection of our Constitution to those who once were excepted from society. This has always been uncomfortable to those that embrace dogma. A philosophical discussion of institutions? We can do that but institutions are based on dogma and therefore the socalled debate would only be an exercise in posturing. My faith ( Catholic) (not practicing well) holds that unless you are Married in The Church, (and there is only One True Church I was raised to believe) you are not married and are living in Sin. Others think differently. And THIS is the basis for government involvement in Marriage. The socalled "protectors" of the institution of Marriage all think "the other guy" is wrong and without the Government passing laws each different religious institution would refuse to recognize the others marriages. But I don't need to worry about all this because I am, by virtue of my membership in the One True Church I am told, Saved!!! The only reason all you other guys are still around is that evidently God thinks you are still to green to burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 "Conversations like this are over the minute someone brings up "morality" as an argument against these issues because it tells me more about the speaker than about those they accuse of being immoral. You can't be reasonable with a person willing to go into the dark realms of hypocrisy."Is this your admission that you are in fact a person who can't be reasoned with? I'm confused. You're only a little hypocritical but not as hypocritical as those against gay marriage? How does that work exactly? It seems one is either hypocritical or is not and i'm not convinced that hypocrisy is defined in the way you seem to be using it. And what happened to all of this. Did you edit it out? Just let me say that you're accusations of me are correct.I am a HUGE hypocrite. I have plenty of faults. I am a terrible person for judging others. And I am as guilty of sinning as the next person (If not more).But, that's one difference between me and many of those who would deny homosexuals the right to marry: I don't let my sins and my faults prohibit me from allowing others the ability to lead fulfilling lives by using their faults and their sins as the reason. I can't be THAT much of a hypocrite and still sleep at night.So, it takes approval from the state, then, to live a fulfilled life? Is that all homosexuals partners want, to live fulfilled lives? I call BS because if that's all they wanted they wouldn't be so objectionable to those that disagree with them. They wouldn't sue photographers that don't want to photograph their ceremonies or bakers that don't want to bake their cakes, especially considering there are photographers and bakers that would supply these same services. What the LGBT really want is for the rest of us to condone and maybe even celebrate their abnormal behavior in an effort to normalize it so their consciences aren't burden by the guilt of their actions. They aren't being denied the right to marry because they can marry (someone of the opposite sex) just the same as I can. Not my fault if they don't want to. This isn't discrimination any more than putting a thief in jail for stealing. And don't back track now because you've already called it a sin by saying you judge people just because they sin differently than you. Rant over! Maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 This Country was founded on the Principle of Acceptance. Enshrined in our Constitution is the idea that the new Government was formed for the express purpose of ensuring that those who think differently from the "norm" are protected. Thus, our laws have broadened and evolved over the years to spread the protection of our Constitution to those who once were excepted from society. This has always been uncomfortable to those that embrace dogma. A philosophical discussion of institutions? We can do that but institutions are based on dogma and therefore the socalled debate would only be an exercise in posturing. My faith ( Catholic) (not practicing well) holds that unless you are Married in The Church, (and there is only One True Church I was raised to believe) you are not married and are living in Sin. Others think differently. And THIS is the basis for government involvement in Marriage. The socalled "protectors" of the institution of Marriage all think "the other guy" is wrong and without the Government passing laws each different religious institution would refuse to recognize the others marriages. But I don't need to worry about all this because I am, by virtue of my membership in the One True Church I am told, Saved!!! The only reason all you other guys are still around is that evidently God thinks you are still to green to burn. What part of the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) are you referring to that is founded on a principle of acceptance? The people that wrote these documents sure weren't very "accepting" of the natives that were here or the slaves that they owned. This isn't about people being different. It's about the protection and well-being of society. "institutions are based on dogma" Could you clarify please? "And THIS is the basis for government involvement in Marriage." Why on earth would the government care what religion recognizes? The government has absolutely NO interest here. Why, if this were true, would the state give tax breaks to married people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musser Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 FYI, at the time the Constitution was written only White "gentelmen" were considered "people" as put forth in the document. People that have an understanding of history know this and understand the historical context in which the document was written. The greatness of the Constitution lies in the fact that it has come to encompass so many more humans that it was originally intended for. Dogma: buy a dictionary. Government has an interest in marriage because the various churches, left alone, would be engaged in outright war. A perfect example is the KKK. The KKK claims to be a Christian organization and it has always been every bit as hatefull to Catholics and Jews as it has been to blacks. There is no point in continuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I know what the word 'dogma' means but what I asking for was what that had to do with the institutions in question or how that is relevant to the discussion. Dogma, in and of itself, isn't necessarily bad nor is it good. It is simply what a set of teachings is called. Do you have some evidence that churches were or would have been at war over the institution of marriage? In fact, can you point to any Christian church that has went to war with another Christian church over anything in recent history? Again, this doesn't explain the government's interest in regulating marriage. Churches don't determine tax breaks for society at-large. And the state doesn't give tax breaks without there being some other benefit to its existence. And the KKK may claim (don't make it fact) to be a Christian organization but it doesn't claim to be nor is it a church or a denomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caserri Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Every time mission posts a joke, this happens. No more jokes mission! Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 And what happened to all of this. Did you edit it out? Just let me say that you're accusations of me are correct. I am a HUGE hypocrite. I have plenty of faults. I am a terrible person for judging others. And I am as guilty of sinning as the next person (If not more). But, that's one difference between me and many of those who would deny homosexuals the right to marry: I don't let my sins and my faults prohibit me from allowing others the ability to lead fulfilling lives by using their faults and their sins as the reason. I can't be THAT much of a hypocrite and still sleep at night. Yes. I changed my last post (post #36). But let me be clear: I did that BEFORE you or anyone else added any additional posts to this topic....that's something we all have the ability to do....it's not a moderator-thing. Reason I changed my post: Because after I published it, I realized I had already decided to bow out of the conversation on my previous post and wouldn't allow myself back in. Thus, only moments after publishing it, my last post (#36) was rewritten in order to state nothing but that I would no longer participate in this debate with you. I only posted this message because I realized I may have confused more than just you if others read my longer post #36 during the few moments it was posted. Though there were probably not many who did since it was only in it's original form for a minute or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 "that's something we all have the ability to do....it's not a moderator-thing." I wasn't accusing you of moderator shenanigans. I know how message boards work. I had already received it in the email notification so I was surprised to see it not there when I went to respond. Here's an unsolicited piece of advice; when carrying on internet discourse don't have quite so thin a skin and put the best construction on what people say. As we all know (or should) we can't read tone of voice so it is best not to assume the worst. As you can see, I love to debate(especially when I have time to measure what I say) but I am also the guy that in the end, buys everyone a drink despite our differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 "that's something we all have the ability to do....it's not a moderator-thing." I wasn't accusing you of moderator shenanigans. I know how message boards work. I had already received it in the email notification so I was surprised to see it not there when I went to respond. I understand. I didn't mean for that to come across as an accusation. I meant no offense to you or anyone. And I truly believe that you were not implying moderator shenanigans. I just had to be clear about when/why I changed my post for those who choose to find conspiracy in every action taken by the staff around here. If you could see even half of what we get accused of doing around here you would know why I added that "moderator-thing" comment. After reading your previous post, I realized that others may have read the full posting #36 during the minute or so that it was up, so I wanted to clear things up to minimize the claims of conspiracy.....claims that, despite my efforts, mods/admin are likely to start getting any minute now. Oh, well....back on topic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Every time mission posts a joke, this happens. No more jokes mission! Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk And I thought I was the only one that noticed that You'd think that these guys would have some machines that need polishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caserri Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am also the guy that in the end, buys everyone a drink despite our differences. I'll take a Cap n' Coke. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlock Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I'll take a Cap n' Coke. Hey! Wait a minute!?! You mean we are allowed to drink while on duty!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caserri Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Hey! Wait a minute!?! You mean we are allowed to drink while on duty!?! I do all the time! That explains about 90% of my posts. The rest are simply a mix of ignorance and stupidity. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkhusker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I'll take a Cap n' Coke. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk Hey! Wait a minute!?! You mean we are allowed to drink while on duty!?! I do all the time! That explains about 90% of my posts. The rest are simply a mix of ignorance and stupidity. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk There you are kind sir! Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.