Every other religious person I’ve ever come across (especially on the internet where people are far more inclined to argue what they REALLY believe in) seem to have a different estimation of morality. Religious folks are just as stuck with the issue of relativism as us Godless heathens are.
If not, even more so
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]twinexperience wrote:
[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Americans are hilarious when it comes to these kind of issues.
In the Uk, civil partnerships have been legal now for just over 8 years…funny thing is though, most people I know are still straight, most people I know have either had OR plan to have kids, get married etc & even more shockingly, Mr Cameron has not YET unveilled plans to legalise sex with pre-pubescent children OR goats etc (I mean, don’t get me wrong, even though the media is pretty much obsessed with convincing everyone their is an horrendous-paedo-monster on every steet corner…I’m sure it’ll happen…In a milion month of Sundays!!!).
The only that’s really changed is, in the past gays would have either: A) Been far more likely to be gay on the ‘down low’ OR B) Accepted that they must (rather sadly) try & fit with the: Find yourself a wife & knock out a few kiddies model…only to eventually tumble out of the closet, 20+ years later.
Of course, in 100+ years time, most of the hardcore religious loons will be long gone & we can find something else to argue over. [/quote]
There you go bringing common sense into this… This is the internet - let the feces hurling resume…
Homosexuality is contradictory in it’s nature. We’re raised on a steady diet of reward for good behavior. “If I do my homework, take my vitamins, get a good job, marry a pretty girl, and above all, go to church every sunday, then my reward is to be deemed morally superior to everyone who hasn’t done these things.” The gays are “cheating the system” - they’re getting away with stuff that I busted my ass for and believed in for all these years. And we can’t have that, now can we. We want so desperately to ascribe all manner of evil doings to homosexuals and when it turns out to be no more true than anyone else, we turn to the “old standby”… You’re evil bc God says so. The famous last resort of desperate men. I personally give religion more credit then that, but if that’s your cup of tea, whatever. [/quote]
Again all interjection of hearsay, no evidence. nothing concrete. He shows as much common sense as blood letting to cure the cold.
Aside from the morality as defined by the God of the bible, there is also an innate and basic morality understood by man. The problem is some do not have the tools to rise above impulses and act in a moral manner.
There is black and white, there is right and wrong, this whole concept of relativism and trying to redefine truths is just another symptom of the larger disease. [/quote]
I think this is why the earlier poster made this point: incidiary internet condescension comes across as looney.
only with those those with no factual basis for their argument.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< It’s also ridiculous to claim that “a man and woman” are the best example of a strong family. I would much rather have 3 generations of relatives to go to, as a child, than just one man and one woman. >>>[/quote]Really? Your rudder’s been hit, your main mast is danglin and you’re a sitting duck for a full broadside now sweetie. You’re not an idiot, but this is a plain stoopid, undisciplined and unforced error right here. Think. Please?
[/quote]
Let’s both think about this for a second. If we’re just talking about family values involving children, what really matters is the community within the family. A gay couple can just as easily involve their child with two sets of grandparents, uncles, aunts, and family friends as a straight couple. I actually know of a highly educated, married, lesbian couple with a daughter who has three sets of relatives as she was one of the lesbian’s daughter from a previous relationship. She is beyond a doubt one of the most intelligent and accomplished kids I’ve ever met. I’m sure that the three extended families, which she spends nearly all of her time with, has helped.
Any child with involved, intelligent, and caring extended family, is going to do better than a kid just raised by two people, whether those two are man and woman or woman and woman. In addition, it’s impossible to tell from the words “man and woman” whether those people are going to be a better, more stable family than “man and man”. There are incredibly mal-adjusted, abusive male and female pairings, and wonderfully-suited-for-parenting same-sex pairings.
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You know that wealth/mobility gap?
Stop trying to equate unequal things, and salvage what’s left. Reverse it before it’s too late, if isn’t already. The traditional family was our lifeblood. [/quote]
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
Hey dude, I’m nearly 6ft 6 & I rather like Cointreau…statistically speaking, I’m pretty odd!!!..do you think the men in white suits will be coming for me soon?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is contradictory in it’s nature because it happens to fall outside what would be termed “normal” behavior statistically. with around 2-3% of the population IDing as being so, it put is outside the confidence limit, close to the prevalence of other common psychological disorders.
So normal not to be confused with natural, which some people have a hard time with, just because something occurs in nature does not mean it is normal. Also just because something becomes pushed into the mainstream and forced acceptance does not mean it is not deprave and a detriment to society. [/quote]
CONVERT…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gay marriage will simply and eventually lead to confusion and sheer stupidity. It’s inevitable.
Examples of western Europe and Canada don’t hold merit at this time because these laws have only been on the books a relatively short time. [/quote]
Whats the fallacy where you make a prediction and ignore evidence against it, repeating that “Its only a matter of time”? Does that one have a name?
So gay marriage will lead inevitably to undesirable circumstances…except in all the cases where it hasn’t (which, ironically, are all the cases)…um…YET!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You also ignored my past posts where I conveyed the idea that the individual states were free to enact these experiments.[/quote]
And you kinda ignored the point of my post: Stop saying “The gay marriage crowd just calls anyone who disagrees with them bigots!”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Capped, since no one else has succeeded in their explanations, pray tell YOU lay out the reasons why Adam, Steve and Evelyn should not be able to enter into a state sanctioned marriage contract.[/quote]
Wasn’t the point of my post. Point was, someone disagreeing with state-recognized polyamorous marriage is not “bigotry against the polyamorous”.
Now, if someone opposes state recognized polyamory on the grounds that “Anyone who is polyamorous is a mentally diseased degenerate pervert”… then, yes, they are bigoted agasint the polyamorous.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You also ignored my past posts where I conveyed the idea that the individual states were free to enact these experiments.[/quote]
And you kinda ignored the point of my post: Stop saying “The gay marriage crowd just calls anyone who disagrees with them bigots!”[/quote]
I categorically disagree with the point of your post.
The squealing of “YOU’RE A BIGOT” is prevalent and often disingenuously misapplied.[/quote]
Think back on all the conversations you’ve seen about gay marriage. Consider how many times someone has stepped forward, opposing gay marriage, and then DIDN’T, shortly after, make some degenerative claim about homosexuals/homosexuality.
Its fuckin…rare, dude.
So if you were a betting man, and someone starts off by saying they oppose gay marriage… where would your money be? That they have no personal bias against homosexuals… or that they are anti-gay and oppose gay marriage as part of their anti-gay agenda?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ah yes, Sloth is at it again, trying to fling the word “bigot” around until it has no meaning.
2a. So every time Sloth says "If you oppose incestuous or polyamorous marriage, you're a bigot
too!".. He's being stupid.[/quote]
Nope - he is addressing the (flawed) rationale that gay marriage advocates often use, that “denying consenting adults a formal recognition of their relationship is bigotry” by applying that rationale to all other consenting adults relationships and exposing the ignorance and/or hypcrisy of gay marriage advocates who use this rationale to slander opponents.
I get that you don’t get it - it’s logical, and that is hard, because it requires thinking and occasionally reading, but Sloth’s point explodes the favorite go-to move of gay marriage advocates who think the argument is over before it even starts…suddenly, they realize that, oops, maybe they hadn’t thought this whole argument thing through.
[quote] 2b. So when Thunderbolt points out that his gay friend (whose opinion only matters when it echoes
Thunderbolts opinions) opposes gay marriage, and says “My gay friend must be a bigot too!”…
He’s being equally dense.[/quote]
Aw, Capped is still hurt that I have a gay friend whose existence and opinions defy Capped’s lazy worldview and forces him to have to actually justify his piss-poor arguments.
And, as if I needed a reason to think more lowly of your juvenile and uninformed rants, this comment - “(whose opinion only matters when it echoes)” - which is unsubstantiated and nothing more than a weak attempt at a personal attack, has delivered you back to the sandbox with the other trolls.
What a dumb and embarrassing thing to say. But that’s the beauty of free speech - let people ramble on long enough and they show their true colors. But, here is the kicker - I’ve invited that friend to come to T-Nation and log on and let him speak for himself. He’s had a good chuckle at some of the stories I’ve passed along, and no doubt he’d be interested in having you correct him to the right way of thinking on gay marriage and politics generally.
Hmm, that’s fantastic retrospective advice. I don’t remember you blasting away at the ubiquitous slandering of all gay marriage opponents as “bigots!” at the time the discussions got into full swing, but I get the impression you’re a hide-behind-the-apron type anyway. At least you have the sense to admit this line of argument was wrong.