Aaarg! Prop. 8 (vent)

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh, yeah, I knew what you meant by "practical."

But, you still think they can express their beliefs in a practical way by just not engaging in it themselves? I don't see how you resolve "they can" with what you're saying we're on the same page about regarding "practical". Can you explain it to me?

And your casual correlation of homosexuality and murder is disgustingly telling.

How is saying that there are other beliefs that would contradict stopping homosexuality through violent means like murder a correlating homosexuality and murder? Its explicitly saying that is not a reasonable option for resolving Divine Rule #1 because of a contradiction with Divine Rule #2.

Luckily, this country is secular, and prevents any particular religion from enforcing its beliefs in a "practical" way.

But mostly, Joe, I wonder why you think it's depressing" that this can't happen.

Why I think its depressing that /what/ can't happen? The country preventing a religion from enforcing its beliefs? Or the expression of religious belief? You need to be a little more specific.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level without it running into conflict with the temperment of others--on occasion.

This PROP8 thing is just one of those occasions.

Its just sad.

You cant lump all Christians together because plenty of them support same-sex marriage or Gay rights to some degree. I mean, Hitler had plenty of Gays in his regime and the Nazis still brutalized and murdered Gays for that alone.

AND the evangelicals get to vote, too. Theyre not obligated to be nice or fair or wise or kind. Thats how it is. You change hearts and minds you DO NOT shove old women around and then expect to make converts of the audience watching your tantrum on the tv.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But, you still think they can express their beliefs in a practical way by just not engaging in it themselves? I don't see how you resolve "they can" with what you're saying we're on the same page about regarding "practical". Can you explain it to me?


How is saying that there are other beliefs that would contradict stopping homosexuality through violent means like murder a correlating homosexuality and murder? Its explicitly saying that is not a reasonable option for resolving Divine Rule #1 because of a contradiction with Divine Rule #2.


Why I think its depressing that /what/ can't happen? The country preventing a religion from enforcing its beliefs? Or the expression of religious belief? You need to be a little more specific.

You need to be more specific, then.
As for murder, I did misread that, I apologise. I quite agree, Homosexuals should not be murdered because of someone else's religious beliefs.

But I should have remembered your unique style of argument.

In your original post, you said; I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level without it running into conflict with the temperment of others--on occasion.

So let me ask you; What, really, did you mean by this? because it's a fairly vague statement, and liable to interpretation within the context of this conversation.

 

[Liar]

Everything except the reason for the belief--which may or many not mean that it is essentially mutable (and /that/ would make huge differences in what is a reasonable way to go about practicing it); and whether there are reasons for it that are also buttressing other reasons for other beliefs (which may or may not mean that killing Christians would be a better way to go about preventing Christianity).

So, it makes mostly sense--but not entirely. Fill in those two gaps for me and I think I can see how it fits.

Do I need reasons for my beliefs? Does Christians need reasons to believe in Jesus (or as it might be in this case, Levictus)? I don't see why any special reason of mine would be less or more valid than any reason of yours (Not you personally, "you" as a Christian, I mean.)

Not sure what you're asking here. I'm not even 100% sure what theword buttressing means.

Would it be wrong, by itself? Thats a normative judgement, so that
s a tough one. Would it be wrong-by-our-general-notions-of-a-free-people? Yes. Probably.

The rest of the question is phrased a little odd. Are you meaning to ask if one is right and one is wrong?

Kind of.

What I meant was if it IS wrong-by-our-general-notions-of-a-free-people, what is it that makes the same thing against homosexuality a-ok?

 

[Sandy_Fox]

But, you still think they can express their beliefs in a practical way by just not engaging in it themselves? I don't see how you resolve "they can" with what you're saying we're on the same page about regarding "practical". Can you explain it to me?


How is saying that there are other beliefs that would contradict stopping homosexuality through violent means like murder a correlating homosexuality and murder? Its explicitly saying that is not a reasonable option for resolving Divine Rule #1 because of a contradiction with Divine Rule #2.


Why I think its depressing that /what/ can't happen? The country preventing a religion from enforcing its beliefs? Or the expression of religious belief? You need to be a little more specific.

JESUS J. JUMPING CHRIST! You just will NOT answer a question will you? No, instead you mealey mouth your bigoted little platitudes and feigned stupidity.

Okay, I will be specific:

Other than for religious reasons (which are excluded from consideration by the U.S. Constitution), what LEGAL grounds do you have for excluding certain rights from some and allowing them for others?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SANDY

You just wont be happy till everyone sodomizes you, huh?

Read more, talk less.

 

[Stella_Omega]

JESUS J. JUMPING CHRIST! You just will NOT answer a question will you? No, instead you mealey mouth your bigoted little platitudes and feigned stupidity.

Okay, I will be specific:

Other than for religious reasons (which are excluded from consideration by the U.S. Constitution), what LEGAL grounds do you have for excluding certain rights from some and allowing them for others?

Fox, I'd like to introduce you to Joe Wordsworth, the forum's korinthenkacker extraordinaire.

Joe, meet yet another person who probably isn't going to convert to your form of "logical argument."

 

[Liar]

JESUS J. JUMPING CHRIST! You just will NOT answer a question will you? No, instead you mealey mouth your bigoted little platitudes and feigned stupidity.

It's just how Joe rolls. Read it slooowly and three times, and you'll see that it's not as inflammatory as it might look. Just very, shall we say, technical. And totally frustrating to parse at times.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You need to be more specific, then.
As for murder, I did misread that, I apologise. I quite agree, Homosexuals should not be murdered because of someone else's religious beliefs.

But I should have remembered your unique style of argument.

I'm almost flattered, but its not really all that unique.

In your original post, you said; I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level without it running into conflict with the temperment of others--on occasion.

So let me ask you; What, really, did you mean by this? because it's a fairly vague statement, and liable to interpretation within the context of this conversation.

Hmmm.

Well, marriage is kind of arbitrary (not that it isn't good for some things or desireable or emotionally comforting or practical, but its an artificial way of organizing people--we could survive as a people without it, with few changes), and gay marriage is especially so (it only has meaning as a function of "what others do" not in an of itself). And here we have an attitude of society that, at the moment (and by no means forever from here on out or inevitable in a few more years), means that the beliefs of a people (longstanding sorts of beliefs, ones you would have to mention to tell the history of mankind level of important) goes further than society is willing to let them exercise.

Not really all that different than a sort of objective melancholy by seeing things like voodoo or some native american practices being at odds with a changing set of circumstance or public opinion. We're watching the slow extinction of a way of looking at the world--and that's kind of sad. Certainly for those, like me, who fully believe that our progress as a people is not going to be linear, but cyclical.

It hasn't a thing to do with promoting or disagreeing with the position, any more than being a little saddened by the eradication of a natural predator of deer is a love for wolves and hatred of Bambi.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Do I need reasons for my beliefs?

Yes, and you have them--even if you're not directly aware of what those reasons are.

Does Christians need reasons to believe in Jesus (or as it might be in this case, Levictus)?

Yes. And they do.

I don't see why any special reason of mine would be less or more valid than any reason of yours (Not you personally, "you" as a Christian, I mean.)

A reason would be more sound if it had a greater rational coherance (the reasons relate more reasonably to the conclusion)--you can't have something more valid (valid means "and true"), if its true then its true. No degree of truth there. Soundness can vary, validity is a 1 or 0 proposition.

Not sure what you're asking here. I'm not even 100% sure what theword buttressing means.

Kind of.

What I meant was if it IS wrong-by-our-general-notions-of-a-free-people, what is it that makes the same thing against homosexuality a-ok?

I don't know. I would think it'd be wrong either way.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

JESUS J. JUMPING CHRIST! You just will NOT answer a question will you? No, instead you mealey mouth your bigoted little platitudes and feigned stupidity.

Okay, I will be specific:

I think you're overassuming a lot of things here, my notstupidity may be one of them. And you should relax a little, and maybe think about not calling people names--its childish and rude. I realize you don't have to top, but I know I'd sure appreciate it.

Other than for religious reasons (which are excluded from consideration by the U.S. Constitution), what LEGAL grounds do you have for excluding certain rights from some and allowing them for others?

Now, that's an interesting question.

Reasons, legally, for denying rights that aren't religious-based between some people and other people? It would depend on the category, wouldn't it? We already deny rights to prisoners and can do so legally, so the reason would be "some, not others, because of defiance of the law". We can deny rights for the insane, unvoluntarily--so that'd be "some, not others, because of hazard to themselves or others".

We do admit them voluntarily, too, so that'd be "some, not others, because of contract". And we do deny rights based on inexplicit forbearance, like with the GITMO prisoners--"some, not others, because no explicit mandate against"

I think those are probably the major categories, I can't think of any other reasons we can do it and do it legally (and that last one was only a techinicality).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It's just how Joe rolls. Read it slooowly and three times, and you'll see that it's not as inflammatory as it might look. Just very, shall we say, technical. And totally frustrating to parse at times.

Assuming she's a woman, I was almost kinda turned on by the angryness. I've got a half-chubby working right now.

 

[fieryjen]

Assuming she's a woman, I was almost kinda turned on by the angryness. I've got a half-chubby working right now.

SF is not so much a woman though, from what I've heard. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Sandy_Fox]

Assuming she's a woman, I was almost kinda turned on by the angryness. I've got a half-chubby working right now.

Well, put you dick away sunshine - I'm a straight guy. Even if I were a woman I would have no interest in a fatuous, pompous ass that refuses to answer a simple question without prevarication, yet has the arrogance to tell others what to think (BTW are you Catholic or LDS?)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

SF is not so much a woman though, from what I've heard. Sorry to disappoint you.

Well... That makes me a little more disappointed at the post, then. We'll manage, I'm sure, but it makes me miss some of the old crowd who would yell at me--just a little.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm almost flattered, but its not really all that unique.


Hmmm.

Well, marriage is kind of arbitrary (not that it isn't good for some things or desireable or emotionally comforting or practical, but its an artificial way of organizing people--we could survive as a people without it, with few changes), and gay marriage is especially so (it only has meaning as a function of "what others do" not in an of itself). And here we have an attitude of society that, at the moment (and by no means forever from here on out or inevitable in a few more years), means that the beliefs of a people (longstanding sorts of beliefs, ones you would have to mention to tell the history of mankind level of important) goes further than society is willing to let them exercise.

I am tempted to assume that you mean the longstanding belief that Yahweh is the supreme being, and that Xtian majority has the right to enforce their morals on everyone else. It's difficult to tell.

But I can assure you that the prospect fills me with zero sense of melancholy!

Not really all that different than a sort of objective melancholy by seeing things like voodoo or some native american practices being at odds with a changing set of circumstance or public opinion. We're watching the slow extinction of a way of looking at the world--and that's kind of sad. Certainly for those, like me, who fully believe that our progress as a people is not going to be linear, but cyclical.

At this time, Christianity is far from endangered. In fact, Voudoun and NA practices are enjoying a renaissance. I blame Bush.

It hasn't a thing to do with promoting or disagreeing with the position, any more than being a little saddened by the eradication of a natural predator of deer is a love for wolves and hatred of Bambi.

heterosexuals are being eradicated? Or they are the natural predators of homosexuals? This is an odd metaphor, my friend.

Your religion is not going away. Your beliefs are shared by billions. Giving other people room for their lives is not the end of the world.

 

[Guest]

Well... That makes me a little more disappointed at the post, then. We'll manage, I'm sure, but it makes me miss some of the old crowd who would yell at me--just a little.

Nahhh.

You get off on the act of arguing.

This isn't a game. People are hurting from this legislation.

You'll have to get your chubby elsewhere.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, put you dick away sunshine

It wasn't out.

- I'm a straight guy.

I don't recall anyone asking about or doubting that. At least I didn't. Your straightness or not wouldn't have a thing to do with the content of your discource. You don't have to bring it up.

Even if I were a woman I would have no interest in a fatuous, pompous ass that refuses to answer a simple question without prevarication, yet has the arrogance to tell others what to think (BTW are you Catholic or LDS?)

How are your interests-as-a-woman relevant?

And, again, the rudeness and namecalling isn't necessary, nor appreciated. Nobody's making fun of you or insulting you, can you not act civilly?

And I don't recall having told anyone here what to think... or if I did, could you be kind enough to point out where?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I am tempted to assume that you mean the longstanding belief that Yahweh is the supreme being, and that Xtian majority has the right to enforce their morals on everyone else. It's difficult to tell.

Belief system, that might have been a better way to put it.

But I can assure you that the prospect fills me with zero sense of melancholy!
At this time, Christianity is far from endangered. In fact, Voudoun and NA practices are enjoying a renaissance. I blame Bush.heterosexuals are being eradicated? Or they are the natural predators of homosexuals? This is an odd metaphor, my friend.

Oh, I'd disagree a little. I think some ways of being Christian are very much endangered. I don't think anyone's likely to make the argument that what they are is immutable and external pressure is never sufficient to make it change or go away (given history we already know where that has happened, from small to large scale incidents).

A belief system that believes that a practice is a spiritual (essential) flauting of all that is good and Lawful would be a natural predator of someone who is claiming to be naturally subject to that practice... no?

Your religion is not going away. Your beliefs are shared by billions. Giving other people room for their lives is not the end of the world.

Some of my beliefs are shared by billions. I think its a shortsighted way of looking at it to say Christianity is anything near cohesive or all "on the same page" about social issues.

 

[rgraham666]

I see our resident scholastic is back.

 

[Weird Harold]

Possibly probate lawyers too. ..

That's why I contend that the real issue here is the hierarchy of "Next-of-kin" with "spouse" at the top and "contractual partner" at the bottom. If you start with that premise and "follow the money" you'll find most of the non-religious opponents of same-sex marriage.

Whether or not prop. 8 was rightfully decided, this whole argument is a bunch of horse manure.

The idea that a group of representatives are MORE capable and MORE likely to make a decision that is good for the populace ... well, if you believe that, nothing the government did would EVER be wrong now, would it?

Who would you rather have making laws?

A: A group of people chosen to represent the interests of a constituency; whose full-time job is, at least nominally, to read understand, and evaluate proposed legislation before voting on it.

or

B: A mass of voters whose entire knowledge of the issue is the blurbs on the sample ballot, the opposing propaganda campaigns, or even just the wording on the ballot?

'Group A' isn't going to guarantee good laws, but it has a better chance of passing good laws than 'Group B' does. If nothing else, 'Group A' tends to be generally better educated than 'Group B.'

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, Joe, your philosophical sorrow isn't really worth debating, as far as I'm concerned.

I know too many people who are dealing with real immediate sorrow, right now. Seven year olds who had to go to school last Wednesday knowing that the half of state doesn't think their mommies should be married, for instance.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, Joe, your philosophical sorrow isn't really worth debating, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree entirely. I didn't think it need one to begin with.

I know too many people who are dealing with real immediate sorrow, right now. Seven year olds who had to go to school last Wednesday knowing that the half of state doesn't think their mommies should be married, for instance.

Seems that debating that sorrow is pretty pointless, too.

 

[Liar]

Yes, and you have them--even if you're not directly aware of what those reasons are.

I know my reasons. But in the statement that you wrote and I parroted, you didn't disclose any such reasons from the Christian point of view. So why should I have to do that from mine?

A reason would be more sound if it had a greater rational coherance (the reasons relate more reasonably to the conclusion)--you can't have something more valid (valid means "and true"), if its true then its true. No degree of truth there. Soundness can vary, validity is a 1 or 0 proposition.

I'm not here to bicker about choice of word or sematics. So, fine, SOUNDNESS then, if it makes you happier.My question still stands. And unanswered.

"Valid" by the way, have more meaning than whatever it means in the field of formal logic. It can according to my dictionary mean "having force, weight, or cogency". Which definitely it han have more or less of.

I don't know. I would think it'd be wrong either way.

Uh... I'm getting vertigo here. How does that compute with "I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level" and "the only practical way for them to express their belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term"

...when doing that is, de facto, excerting or propagating for discrimination?

?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I know my reasons. But in the statement that you wrote and I parroted, you didn't disclose any such reasons from the Christian point of view. So why should I have to do the same from mine?

I did give the reason, though. Divine mandate. I made that quite clear. It colors the way they think about what they do and should do and shouldn't do. Can't really meaningfully argue with Divine mandate. Now, if your belief were Divine mandate--like Islam or something--that would definitely define the parameters of what you could reasonably be able to operate within. If your beliefs were based on, however, whatever you felt like when you woke up--then its an easier system to alter and change.

Its an important distinction.

I'm not here to bicker about choice of word. So, fine, SOUNDNESS then, if it makes you happier.My question still stands. And unanswered.

Can you give me the question again (I'm not really able to go back and look, its complicated), I'll do my best.

Uh... I'm getting vertigo here. How does that compute with "I think its kind of depressing that religious people can't express their beliefs on a practical level" and "the only practical way for them to express their belief that isn't compromised from the beginning is to deny that as a possibility for anyone at every available term"

...when doing that is, de facto, excerting or propagating for discrimination?

?

They don't think they're discriminating. You gotta see it from their perspective a little... is a little sadness for their sake. They're watching a steady death on the friges of their whole worldview... year by year. An ideological growing pain.