Post Reply
Page 30 of 34  •  Prev 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 34 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Appeals Court Rejects California's Gay Marriage Ban
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 8:53PM #291
farragut
Posts: 4,042

Amen

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 8:54PM #292
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:55PM, Ken wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Ken wrote:

You really are contemptible, aren't you? You tell me to my face that I'm disordered and immoral, then you say you're not a cruel person.



You come up with a rational argument that isn't a pathetic attempt at a personal attack, and your discussions on this topic might go somewhere.



Why don't you do that? I haven't seen you post a rational argument yet. Aren't you just parroting what your religion tells you to think?






Not so.


I've offered very sober, rational reasonable concepts, and made it quite clear that said views leave ample room for the views and choices of others, even when they come from a position of fundamental disagreement.


I just haven't said what you want to hear. I have dared to disagree with suppositions which a certian point of view holds dear to the point of being completely irrational and stridently reactionary whenever they are questioned or challenged. So, it's ironic to see images of blind religious fundamentalism invoked.


As I said, if nothing else, those assertions and arguments as presented here have apparently provided that idealogy with enough rope, and the results have been predicatable. It's hardly the first time it has happened, even on this particular thread. 


It happens continually any time the subject of homosexuality comes up, and somebody dares stray from the "party line" ... so to speak.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 9:26PM #293
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 22, 2012 -- 8:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:55PM, Ken wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Ken wrote:

You really are contemptible, aren't you? You tell me to my face that I'm disordered and immoral, then you say you're not a cruel person.



You come up with a rational argument that isn't a pathetic attempt at a personal attack, and your discussions on this topic might go somewhere.



Why don't you do that? I haven't seen you post a rational argument yet. Aren't you just parroting what your religion tells you to think?



Not so.


I've offered very sober, rational reasonable concepts, and made it quite clear that said views leave ample room for the views and choices of others, even when they come from a position of fundamental disagreement.


No, you have never offered a reasoned argument for your position. You just keep claiming that your postion is rational and other positions aren't.


Feb 22, 2012 -- 8:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It happens continually any time the subject of homosexuality comes up, and somebody dares stray from the "party line" ... so to speak.



There is, of course, only one humane and enlightened view on this subject. That's true of many subjects. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 10:32PM #294
mountain_man
Posts: 39,670

Feb 22, 2012 -- 8:45PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I agree.


Self-determination is a basic human right.


No, you do not agree. You are unwilling to extend basic human rights to homosexuals and instead rely upon a law to guide your ethics. You are also unwilling to extend the basic human rights to homosexuals by claiming that some part of their life is a defect, or whatever term you have switched to lately.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 1:08AM #295
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Feb 22, 2012 -- 10:32PM, mountain_man wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 8:45PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I agree.


Self-determination is a basic human right.


No, you do not agree. You are unwilling to extend basic human rights to homosexuals and instead rely upon a law to guide your ethics. You are also unwilling to extend the basic human rights to homosexuals by claiming that some part of their life is a defect, or whatever term you have switched to lately.





You seem to have the misconception that I have aspirations to somehow control what gay people do or do not do. Or, that I even care what they do. 


I don't. And, I don't.


I rely on the law to settle this matter in such a way that everybody gets basic freedom of choice.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 1:10AM #296
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Ken wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 8:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:55PM, Ken wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:49PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 6:20PM, Ken wrote:

You really are contemptible, aren't you? You tell me to my face that I'm disordered and immoral, then you say you're not a cruel person.



You come up with a rational argument that isn't a pathetic attempt at a personal attack, and your discussions on this topic might go somewhere.



Why don't you do that? I haven't seen you post a rational argument yet. Aren't you just parroting what your religion tells you to think?



Not so.


I've offered very sober, rational reasonable concepts, and made it quite clear that said views leave ample room for the views and choices of others, even when they come from a position of fundamental disagreement.


No, you have never offered a reasoned argument for your position. You just keep claiming that your postion is rational and other positions aren't.


Feb 22, 2012 -- 8:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It happens continually any time the subject of homosexuality comes up, and somebody dares stray from the "party line" ... so to speak.



There is, of course, only one humane and enlightened view on this subject. That's true of many subjects. 





The objectively rational truth has a way of standing on its own. Hence, I feel no need to force my views.


As to your last statement -- it's one of true belief.


 But, I quit paying attention to sermoms some time ago.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 8:11AM #297
arielg
Posts: 9,116
Feb 22, 2012 --  9:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It happens continually any time the subject of homosexuality comes up, and somebody dares stray from the "party line" ... so to speak.


There is, of course, only one humane and enlightened view on this subject. That's true of many subjects.



It is all a matter of identification. We are made of a lot of things, but we identify the strongest with some characteristics. 


 Someone who  identifies  very strongly with hunting,  will believe that someone who doesn't accept or agrees  with hunting, is  rejecting   him. If one builds a  life around hunting, whatever is against hunting is against them.  Because  hunting IS them, in their mind. They ARE a hunter. Any rejection of hunting is a rejection of their whole being. They have reduced themselves to a hunter. It is the same with patriotism or any ideology.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 9:11AM #298
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 23, 2012 -- 1:10AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Ken wrote:

No, you have never offered a reasoned argument for your position. You just keep claiming that your postion is rational and other positions aren't.


The objectively rational truth has a way of standing on its own. Hence, I feel no need to force my views.


To demonstrate the truth of a proposition is not to force one's views. If you think you've got hold of an objectively rational truth, you should be able to present a rational argument for it. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe it. Are we simply to take your word? 


Feb 23, 2012 -- 1:10AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Feb 22, 2012 -- 9:26PM, Ken wrote:

 There is, of course, only one humane and enlightened view on this subject. That's true of many subjects. 


As to your last statement -- it's one of true belief.



Well, it's true and I believe it. Why do you consider that an objection? As I said, there are many subjects upon which there is only one humane and enlightened position. There can hardly be any valid difference of opinion on the propriety of chattel slavery, for instance, or of women's suffrage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 9:13AM #299
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 23, 2012 -- 8:11AM, arielg wrote:


It is all a matter of identification. We are made of a lot of things, but we identify the strongest with some characteristics. 


Someone who  identifies  very strongly with hunting,  will believe that someone who doesn't accept or agrees  with hunting, is  rejecting   him. If one builds a  life around hunting, whatever is against hunting is against them.  Because  hunting IS them, in their mind. They ARE a hunter. Any rejection of hunting is a rejection of their whole being. They have reduced themselves to a hunter. It is the same with patriotism or any ideology.



We're not talking about hunting.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2012 - 9:56AM #300
shmuelgoldstein
Posts: 2,431

Feb 21, 2012 -- 12:34PM, Ebon wrote:


For the record, the UK does have a Constitution, it's just not codified. That means it's scattered across upwards of a dozen documents and in several languages rather than one document.



I stand corrected. Israel has various and sundry "Basic Laws" which the Supreme Court uses as bases for its decisions. Anyway . . . . .


Is the UK "Constitution" such as it is, as "hard-coded" as the US's? In the US, the Constitution *can* be amended, and *any* new law can be written, from the most enlightened to the most draconian, there are no true limits. Even the Bill of Rights can be repealed. BUT in order to change it, there are some tough criteria:


1. Two thirds of BOTH the House and the Senate must pass the proposed change. Very difficult.


2. A full three-fourths of the State legislatures must ALSO pass the proposed change. That means 38 states must also say "OK". In addition, most new amendments these days (like the failed E.R.A.) also have a time limit, afterwhich the amendment, if it hasn't been passed, dies.


So, to pass an amendment, it's got to be something that has a very clear consensus amongst Americans.


And also note that the President has no official say whatsoever in this process.


What's it like in the UK?     (we need to take this offline or to a different forum, actually).

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 30 of 34  •  Prev 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 ... 34 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook