Our government should not recognize marriage between any of its citizens. The majority of its citizens do not recognize it themselves. It should be reserved as a religious institution. One of my biggest beefs with marriage is the fact that most people who enter in to it end up divorced. 51% was the last figure I saw for a divorce rate. 51% get divorced but of the 49% that stay married there is still infidelity and true unhappiness. If I am not mistaken, divorce has declined a bit since then, but cohabitation has increased. Maybe the youth have realized you do not have to get married to live with someone and be unhappy.
As for marriage as a religious institution, why is it that so many Catholics (that is how I was raised, so that what I have the most experience with) have been divorced? Also why is it that in other Catholic countries the church will not allow annulments or divorce but in America it has so many? One of the largest problems that we face is that religious institutions have stopped leading and started catering to the individual. While this keeps numbers up in the church, it fills the building and our country with hypocrites and the self-righteous. Why be an organized religion when none of the members believe or practice what is preached? Unless to make-up for your short cummings by hidding behind an institution of righteousness.
If God talks to you and lets you know what is right and wrong please tell him to explain it to me if he gets a minute. Or start yourself on a dose of anti-psychotics.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
Our government should not recognize marriage between any of its citizens. The majority of its citizens do not recognize it themselves. It should be reserved as a religious institution. One of my biggest beefs with marriage is the fact that most people who enter in to it end up divorced. 51% was the last figure I saw for a divorce rate. 51% get divorced but of the 49% that stay married there is still infidelity and true unhappiness. [/quote]
Actually, BB posted some interesting stats on divorce a few months back. The crux of is is that the dicorce rate for those married only one time is actually much lower than originally thought. Those who have been divorced more than once drive up the total statistics relative to divorce rate. So it’s not nearly at the 50% mark.
Not that any of this is even remotely related to gay marriage.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
No, my “standard” is just my evolved superego telling me what allows for maximum happiness for all of us.
ZEB wrote:
We would have total chaos if everyone subscribed to this. It might be time to reassess.
[/quote]
At the risk of sounding very condescending, you are really being goofy here. At no point does someone like me NOT think of the long term picture vs. the short term. Well… usually, that is.
My behavior and my judgment rely on a grasp of things which is not just all about instant gratification, because that is shallow and weak… not good for long-term survival/happiness. And once again, this is just evolution putting words into my mouth. Those cavemen that learned to cooperate were the ones who could bring down wolly mammoths and fight sabretooth tigers. That intelligence and cooperation was vital to surviving the ice age, ZEB. Those who did not play well with each other died out.
Superego = Good survival mechanism.
Notice that cooperation and getting along with one another happened WAYYY before actual civilization. Before the Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, Kung-Fu-Tse, all that stuff. This is a primal and primitive thing inside all of us.
Completely natural. And that is why there will be no widespread chaos if our species could finally grow into adulthood and escape the grip of fear represented by belief in unrealistic and supernatural things. We still believe in the boogeyman (devil) and the tooth fairy (heaven).
And holy shizzle am I off topic!! LOL Par for the course, man…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If homosexuals want to be able to get married then let it be sanctioned by one of the gay organizations. If that were the case then it would in fact be separate. However, you want it sanctioned by society. Do you see the difference?[/quote]
I’m not saying that the Catholic church, for example, should be forced to sanction gay marriage if they feel that they don’t want to. That is its own social entity… hell, you’re not even supposed to be able to divorce if you are Catholic, correct?
What I want is for gays to be able to marry in the impartial eyes of justice and the law. If a religion wants to sanction them too, then fine. The important part here is that stable and loving gay couples get the equality in the neutral ground of our government that they deserve. You do not want this for them… for weak reasons, but they are YOUR reasons all the same, and that is fine. Your vote counts, even if it is misguided. A shame that there are so many shortsighted and inflexible voters in this country.
It shall be quite a while, I fear, before the idea of the goodness of gay marriage is understood by society at large.
Frowny face.
But… just because I realize this is an uphill battle doesn’t mean that I’m going to give up on you and people like you. I urge you to find your heart, ZEB… someday. If that means giving up on your belief in the supernatural, then all the better.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
And that is why there will be no widespread chaos if our species could finally grow into adulthood and escape the grip of fear represented by belief in unrealistic and supernatural things. We still believe in the boogeyman (devil) and the tooth fairy (heaven).
[/quote]
Right lothario, if you can’t see it and don’t believe it then it must not exist. Yea…I got it.
Once again you demean Christianity! I will say you are consistent. Consistently wrong!
I’m not saying that the Catholic church, for example, should be forced to sanction gay marriage if they feel that they don’t want to. That is its own social entity… hell, you’re not even supposed to be able to divorce if you are Catholic, correct?[/quote]
Divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. And there is a reason for divorce; infidelity.
You have not yet given any good reaons why our society has to be turned on it’s head for about 1% of the population.
By the way you have dodged the question about Polygamists and adult incest twice now. Would you like to answer this? Do you believe that Polygamists and those who practice incest should be allowed to marry?
Plenty of people would be made very happy if the above two things were “legalized.”
Since morals have nothing to do with society (at least in your world) I want you to answer the question!
Deserve? Who says that they “deserve” this treatment? What are the reasons? No one has provided any. Not just on this thread but no where has anyone provided any good reasons.
One fall back “reason” which has popped up now and again: Because African Americans and women were once treated as second class citizens too. Do you think that makes sense?
Do you expect the 70%+ people who are against changing society for about 1% of the population are buying into this? Don’t you think that they have already figured out that race and gender are not “actions.” And that homosexuality is quite a far stretch from either of these two things?
If you look at the statistics “gay marriage” was closer to a reality 6 or 7 years ago. Not that it was actually close then, but it is even further from a reality today. Why do you think it’s getting further away from being a reality?
LOL…when I get done changing my mind on homosexual marriage, I am then going to go vote for Polygamists and those who practice incest to be married as well. Um…NOT!
They do understand it, and that’s why every single time there is a voter referendum on homosexual marriage it loses big time! We understand it only too well. 14 states out of 14 have strongly rejected homosexual marrying. Do you think that will change in your lifetime?
I strongly urge you to “give up on me.”
I don’t believe that anyone should be discriminated against because of what they (legally) do in the privacy of their own home. Whatever laws are currently on the books should be good for all of us as a nation-No discrimination! However, I will never be for turning society upsided down and changing a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population. Especially, when no one has ever given any good reasons why this should occur.
Since you continually bring up “spiritual matters” I will too this time around.
I urge you to find God.
Your desire to place homosexual marriage above everything else (especially spiritual matters) is astounding. I think you need to expand your own horizons, and open your own heart to how the others feel.
Constantly living in the temporal world won’t bring you happiness. That you will find out soon enough if you have not already. There is indeed something more lothario!
I always get a kick out of the guys who post on this site about the great discipline that they undergo in order to achieve their idea of a great body. Then they trample on every bit of discipline in chasing worldly lusts (take your pick) thinking that it will bring them happiness. It will bring them about as much long term happiness as eating junk food and avoiding the proper training techniques will bring them a great body.
Some get it…
I was once like you. I lived for the world and tried to have as much “fun” as I could pack into a day. I know how your thinking and why (as you explained it to me). Can you say the same about my current beliefs? No…but you don’t have to because you have a sterotype to rely on. How closed minded of you!
I think you attack Christianity every chance you get because you don’t understand it. You want to talk about being “open” yet I doubt that you have even read the New Testament, much less understand it. How can you attack something you don’t even understand? Does that fixed sterotype stop you from expanding your horizons?
Okay enough about spiritual matters. But I think that from this point forward I am going to quote a Bible verse everytime you attack Christianity.
let’s talk about situational ethics. You seem to think that it is “reality” and somehow a better or more humane than a consistent standard for right and wrong. To illustrate this issue let’s look at crime.
The law states that murder is wrong. So you kill someone and you suffer the penalty of the law.
So, some people like you get together and say; we need to make a law that says that if you kill someone because you don’t like their skin color or racial background, that it is worse and we call that a “hate crime”.
So the obvious implication is that killing someone for their money is not as bad as killing them because you don’t like their skin color. This is a prime example of situational ethics or morals.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that it does two things, it excuses immoral or criminal behavior because of perceived motivation, and it condemns a crime as more “criminal” by one’s motivation, when the outcome is the same.
The problem with both of these outcomes of situational ethics is that it is inconsistent application of the standard. If I kill someone for money or because I don’t like them, that person is still dead. They are not more dead if I kill them because I don’t like them. The outcome is the same regardless of motivation.
So bringing this back to the topic at hand, I believe it is morally wrong to have sex with a man regardless of the situation. That is consistent and does not change with others opinions or the situation.
You, on the other hand believe that this behavior is ok because they are “good people” and have good morals. You use that context (or situation) to make your judgment of their lifestyle and other behavior. So you say, because they have good morals their behavior must be also good. The problem with this thinking is that it is irrational and if you test it it comes up a being faulty. So we could say, using your situational ethics, that since this guy is a model citizen, takes care of old ladys, etc. that his behavior of wanting to have sex with kids is ok. Right?
No, you will say that it’s not the same. Why? Because popular society, in which you use to determine what is right and wrong (situation), does not support that behavior. So it is wrong. Yet, once they do you will be the first to say, it’s fine. So what was once wrong, is not right. Has the action changed? No.
So what the real tragedy about situational ethics is that it does not support a consistent application of justice and is based on motivation not outcome.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Right lothario, if you can’t see it and don’t believe it then it must not exist. Yea…I got it.
Once again you demean Christianity! I will say you are consistent. Consistently wrong!
[/quote]
As much as I dig the idea of an afterlife (that not dying part is pretty cool), if I am honest with myself, I have to admit that it is my imagination (wishful thinking perhaps?)to think that there would be such a thing. Things in my imagination are not real. The same goes for you and everybody else.
I realize that some folks look to religion as a reason for morality, as if cooperation and kindness are dependent upon reward or punishment after death. This is silly. A mature human being can see the benefits of getting along with one another (not raping, murdering, etc.) just fine without having to live a lie.
However, as much as I rail against your organized religion, I must still give it props for keeping those (ahem) less than mature of us from doing silliness just because they are too shortsighted or weak to see the value of delayed gratification. I just hate when that backfires on us, man! This gay marriage flap is one such backfiring.
Visit godhatesfags.com to see a shining example of how some people can take their religious beliefs a little too far, and use it as a weapon against others. Would Jesus be appalled at how his teachings of love have been twisted and distorted to represent the mindless garbage on that website? You tell me.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So, some people like you get together and say; we need to make a law that says that if you kill someone because you don’t like their skin color or racial background, that it is worse and we call that a “hate crime”.[/quote]
Umm… straw man… maybe unintentionally. I think the idea of “hate crime is different than normal crime” is silly. That isn’t situational ethics at all. Situational ethics relies on perceiving a crime at all in the face of circumstances. That means that murder (for example) is justifiable in some cases, although it is a crime in many others.
Example: self defense. I don’t care WHY you were trying to kill me (money, race, whatever), I just made sure that you didn’t by killing you first.
So can we agree that killing (a sin) is not only justifiable, but a pretty damn good idea sometimes? You are an honest man… admit it. Yes, sometimes killing is a good thing. That means that there is relativity in a decision about the act of killing, dependent upon the situation, and therefore it is not an “evil thing” as an ethics code of absolutes would have you believe. Simple.
[quote]So bringing this back to the topic at hand, I believe it is morally wrong to have sex with a man regardless of the situation. That is consistent and does not change with others opinions or the situation.
You, on the other hand believe that this behavior is ok because they are “good people” and have good morals. You use that context (or situation) to make your judgment of their lifestyle and other behavior. So you say, because they have good morals their behavior must be also good. The problem with this thinking is that it is irrational and if you test it it comes up a being faulty.[/quote]
Ummm… gay people who love goodness and act accordingly are good. There is nothing irrational about that. The problem here is you. You perceive that how they live their sex lives has more to do with their morality than what their behavior towards others is. And really, that is what morality is anyway. How you treat other people. Maybe you missed that part in class?
Ugh. A million ughs. A child, by definition is NOT adult enough (that’s why porn is called ADULT movies) to do sex. Please get your mind out of the gutter and look at this rationally. And really, you should know better than to try some cheap trick like this when debating me by now. I’m… insulted. Kinda. Oh well.
[quote]No, you will say that it’s not the same. Why? Because popular society, in which you use to determine what is right and wrong (situation), does not support that behavior. So it is wrong. Yet, once they do you will be the first to say, it’s fine. So what was once wrong, is not right. Has the action changed? No.
So what the real tragedy about situational ethics is that it does not support a consistent application of justice and is based on motivation not outcome.
[/quote]
Learn what situational ethics actually is, and then get back to me. I do not hold your ignorance against you, because you have indoctrinated yourself quite thoroughly into your religious beliefs, and that is fine (see my reply to ZEB about this above), but be careful where the dogma takes you. Sometimes you guys get it twisted, and look down on those who do not deserve your scorn. There is plenty in this world to dislike and denigrate. Save your hate for those who truly are your enemy.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You have not yet given any good reaons why our society has to be turned on it’s head for about 1% of the population.[/quote]
Yes, the good things I brought up are all bullshit, and the world will come to a screeching halt – pausing only to explode into smithereens – if we open our interpretations of marriage to include gay couples. Oh the horror!!
Good lord are you hung up on this!! LOL It’s okay, man… you’re still cool. I can see past your hangups and appreciate your good side. “Turn society on its head”… ya know, that’s got a nice ring to it.
Sorry, my bad. I didn’t mean to be a question-dodger.
Polygamy: Alive and well. Not widespread in this day and age, but we still see it in other countries. As long as there’s no goats, manatees, or five-year old kids – on the surface, I can’t see the harm in it. There’s a catch though: Time and history has told us how difficult it is to make marriage among just two people work. Throw in just one other person, and it’s bound to be even more of a hassle. I’m talking about jealousy and time constraints here.
And when we take into account the legal ramifications, I mean power of attorney, living will issues, etc., etc. You can’t have two people with the same designation of power of attorney over you, so just to reduce headaches and remain true to the spirit of what marriage seeks to accomplish, we should imagine a marriage contract as the same kind of entity.
That means one spouse, and if you’re going to have more people involved in your personal relationships, they should just be girlfriends, for example. Swingers do this all the time… have friends with benefits that they share with each other. There is little good to society to be gained by encouraging polygamy. Legally messy. It only works in societies which view women as property. To them, another wife is like another car. That shit don’t fly over here in the US.
Incest: Not good biology. End of story. Did you know that we (medical folks) do something called “genetic counseling” to folks who are identified as being at risk for having children with birth defects? And since we are so gung ho about kids being a good reason for having such a thing as marriage around in the first place, then encouraging folks who automatically promote birth defects is not a good idea. Incest was all the rage back in the day with royalty. Not cool.
[quote]Since you continually bring up “spiritual matters” I will too this time around.
I urge you to find God.
Your desire to place homosexual marriage above everything else (especially spiritual matters) is astounding. I think you need to expand your own horizons, and open your own heart to how the others feel.[/quote]
My spirituality is just a metaphor. I am open to how you think, and I reject it out of hand. My common sense tells me this, and nothing more. Give me something that is rational and real. Like what I believe in already. Fantasy stuff is all cool and whatnot (I like to go to movies just like anybody else), but it is important to maintain a separation of your imagination from what is reality. Otherwise, weird stuff like persecuting people, believing in magic healing powers (Benny Hinn, anyone?), etc., happens.
Do you want something to bring you happiness that is not dependent upon strict rationalism? Try art. That’s what it’s for, man! Create something. A table, a painting…learn the guitar, write your wife a poem telling her how special she is… there are literally a bazillionty things you can do with art. I know you have some talent with something, because you write well and express yourself very clearly. I bet you could write some decent poetry.
[quote]I always get a kick out of the guys who post on this site about the great discipline that they undergo in order to achieve their idea of a great body. Then they trample on every bit of discipline in chasing worldly lusts (take your pick) thinking that it will bring them happiness. It will bring them about as much long term happiness as eating junk food and avoiding the proper training techniques will bring them a great body.
Some get it…
I was once like you. I lived for the world and tried to have as much “fun” as I could pack into a day. I know how your thinking and why (as you explained it to me). Can you say the same about my current beliefs? No…but you don’t have to because you have a sterotype to rely on. How closed minded of you![/quote]
So now it’s a harmful stereotype of you for me to imagine that you believe in miracles, Jesus rose on the third day, healed lepers, brought other folks back to life with magic powers, etc.? That’s what I heckle you guys for. The supernatural BS which you guys feel gives your messiah some kind of special standing or something. To y’all, Jesus wasn’t just a man, right? Stop me when I get something wrong here. Jesus was a very cool dude. A visionary. I like his philosophy, for the most part… even though it is based in supernatural stuff which isn’t real. I like the live and let live stuff, it’s good. You could do a lot worse than to be a christian. Of course, you could do a lot better too, but… that’s just my opinion, isn’t it?
I attack christianity because it isn’t real. A soon as it stops taking itself seriously, and trying to mold our society in ways that are wrong (like being against gay marriage, for example) then I will let up.
Okay enough about spiritual matters. But I think that from this point forward I am going to quote a Bible verse everytime you attack Christianity.
Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
[/quote]
Cool. Allow me to retort:
“A young man who is not a liberal has no heart, an old man who is not a conservative is a fool.”
How does it feel to be a living and breathing cliche?
As much as I dig the idea of an afterlife (that not dying part is pretty cool), if I am honest with myself, I have to admit that it is my imagination (wishful thinking perhaps?)to think that there would be such a thing. Things in my imagination are not real. The same goes for you and everybody else.[/quote]
The difference between us here is that I have studied the book which guarantees an after life and you have not (at least you have not indicated that you have when asked).
How smart would I be if I started to speak negatively of a Chad Waterbury program without first studying it?
You and the others would jump all over me, and you would have a right to. However when it comes to Christianity it seems that any nut (not you my friend) who wants to attack it without ever reading the book is allowed to do so with no verbal repurcussions.
Again, your implication that Christians are not “mature” because we believe in a higher power is actually an ignorant statement since you have little knowledge of why we believe what we believe.
It is, and there are many more.
You think you have stumbled on something there lothario? I have seen the site and agree that it is “off the wall.”
However, that site does not represent Christianity on this earth. Again, I ask you to crack open the New Testament and give it a real good read before you insult and attack Christianity.
Yes, the good things I brought up are all bullshit, and the world will come to a screeching halt – pausing only to explode into smithereens – if we open our interpretations of marriage to include gay couples. Oh the horror!! :)[/quote]
Good use of hyperbol! Yes excellen indeed.
No, all I am saying is that:
Homosexuals cannot be comared to someone who suffered discrimination because of race or gender.
The “seems fair” reason is simply weak and can be used to rationalize just about anything…Polygamy anyone? Seems fair…
The “this would make gay people happy” reason is even weaker than “it seems fair” (heck we all want to “seem fair”). lothario I would like to make everyone happy. And you know what? We can make the majority of Americans happy by not allowing homosexuals to marry.
In short you really have not given any good reasons why homosexuals should marry. Sorry, but you really have not done it.
Most people are used to the fanatical social liberals carrying on about something. “Squeaky wheel gets the grease” as they say. It seems strange having to debate someone who is just as out spoken as you are huh?
No I’m not hung up about this or anything else, are you?
Well, I never hold grudges against those I debate with. It’s not always like that with folks on your side. Some even hate my views so much they carry it onto other threads…tisk tisk.
[quote]Polygamy: Alive and well. Not widespread in this day and age, but we still see it in other countries. As long as there’s no goats, manatees, or five-year old kids – on the surface, I can’t see the harm in it. There’s a catch though: Time and history has told us how difficult it is to make marriage among just two people work. Throw in just one other person, and it’s bound to be even more of a hassle. I’m talking about jealousy and time constraints here.
And when we take into account the legal ramifications, I mean power of attorney, living will issues, etc., etc. You can’t have two people with the same designation of power of attorney over you, so just to reduce headaches and remain true to the spirit of what marriage seeks to accomplish, we should imagine a marriage contract as the same kind of entity.
That means one spouse, and if you’re going to have more people involved in your personal relationships, they should just be girlfriends, for example. Swingers do this all the time… have friends with benefits that they share with each other. There is little good to society to be gained by encouraging polygamy. Legally messy. It only works in societies which view women as property. To them, another wife is like another car. That shit don’t fly over here in the US.[/quote]
You start out by saying “I can’t see any harm in it.” But you seem to end as against it. Which is it?
What about an adult brother and sister who are not able to have children and this can be proven. Do you think they should be allowed to marry? It would really make them happy…
I want you to say that line to yourself slowly…you are “open but reject it out of hand.” Ooookay…
Again without any study or even exploring you simply reject it…
I like art and poetry. Reason being, I gave them a chance. I didn’t close my mind to the possibilities
Personally, I feel it’s always wrong to sterotype an entire race, gender or religion. You seem awfully open minded about your small circle of friends, yet very closed minded about things of a much greater magnitude. Odd.
Opinion based on what? You have not studied Christianity. In fact, you have not even read the New Testament! How can you have such a strong opinion? I am seriously interested.
Again, you don’t understand Christianity because you have never read the scriptures. Yet, you form an opinion. Where I come from they call that bigotry!
[quote]Okay enough about spiritual matters. But I think that from this point forward I am going to quote a Bible verse everytime you attack Christianity.
Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’[/quote]
Cool. Allow me to retort:
“A young man who is not a liberal has no heart, an old man who is not a conservative is a fool.”
How does it feel to be a living and breathing cliche? :)[/quote]
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Umm… straw man… maybe unintentionally. I think the idea of “hate crime is different than normal crime” is silly. That isn’t situational ethics at all. Situational ethics relies on perceiving a crime at all in the face of circumstances. That means that murder (for example) is justifiable in some cases, although it is a crime in many others.
Example: self defense. I don’t care WHY you were trying to kill me (money, race, whatever), I just made sure that you didn’t by killing you first.
So can we agree that killing (a sin) is not only justifiable, but a pretty damn good idea sometimes? You are an honest man… admit it. Yes, sometimes killing is a good thing. That means that there is relativity in a decision about the act of killing, dependent upon the situation, and therefore it is not an “evil thing” as an ethics code of absolutes would have you believe. Simple.
[/quote]
I personally feel that killing is only an option when there are no other options. If it is me or an attacker then it’s not going to be me. However, dying for your faith or good cause is another issue.
You keep trying to draw a global conclusion based on only one aspect of a person’s behavior.
Oh, that young man down the street, he was so nice to me. He helped me with my yard work, and drove me to the store (said the old woman neighbor of the latest convicted serial killer).
Just because someone does something good or bad to others doesn’t mean they are good or bad. They just have good or bad behavior. So your homosexual friends may be very nice and caring people. That doesn’t make their sexual behavior moral.
The facts are that several hundred years ago children of age 12 on up got married. They were not considered children at that age. So the “definition” of an adult has changed with societies values.
So the point is valid and something you should look at.
[quote]
Learn what situational ethics actually is, and then get back to me. I do not hold your ignorance against you, because you have indoctrinated yourself quite thoroughly into your religious beliefs, and that is fine (see my reply to ZEB about this above), but be careful where the dogma takes you. Sometimes you guys get it twisted, and look down on those who do not deserve your scorn. There is plenty in this world to dislike and denigrate. Save your hate for those who truly are your enemy.[/quote]
I may not know what your own personal definition of situational ethics is, but I know what the commonly accepted definition is. It is using the situation to determine if an action is right or wrong. Which means people do some very immoral things because they have no consistent moral foundation to judge each situation by.
Next, Zeb and I have stated many times that we don’t condemn gays as humans, we condemn their behavior, which is separate from who they are. You are the one who keeps defining them by their behavior. So you may want to stop throwing that hate term around as no one is buying it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The difference between us here is that I have studied the book which guarantees an after life and you have not (at least you have not indicated that you have when asked).
How smart would I be if I started to speak negatively of a Chad Waterbury program without first studying it?
You and the others would jump all over me, and you would have a right to. However when it comes to Christianity it seems that any nut (not you my friend) who wants to attack it without ever reading the book is allowed to do so with no verbal repurcussions.[/quote]
Ah yes, but a CW program, and more importantly, the results of that program are real. It is testable. BTW, a book cannot guarantee you an afterlife. All a book is is a bunch of words.
LOL I know why you believe what you do. I don’t have to brainwash myself to understand this. And really, I don’t mean to make it sound like y’all are childish and stupid, it’s just… hmmm. It’s that the childlike mind analogy is the best analogy I could think of. I mean, here we have these archetypes; the all-powerful father figure, a pure and blemishless mother figure who bore salvation into the world… it’s like sneaking a peek at one of Freud’s playbooks.
I think I can see what your book is getting into at a deeper level is the attempt to reconcile the imperfect nature of all people with the Jesus archetype who has no selfishness. Jesus teaches us that salvation is achieved through an act of selflessness and service to others. And you are admonished to carry on the good work that was achieved through the crucifixion. Sound familiar? What have I been exhorting the whole time here? The virtues of kindness, generosity, courage, honesty, and compassion are their own rewards.
You and I are more alike than you would probably like to admit, ZEB. I see that the difference is that I have let go of the supernatural… that’s it. Otherwise, I might as well be knocking on people’s doors and handing out bibles.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I personally feel that killing is only an option when there are no other options. If it is me or an attacker then it’s not going to be me. However, dying for your faith or good cause is another issue.[/quote]
So you do agree with me. The context of a situation contributes to the morality of any actions taken during that situation.
[quote]You keep trying to draw a global conclusion based on only one aspect of a person’s behavior.
Oh, that young man down the street, he was so nice to me. He helped me with my yard work, and drove me to the store (said the old woman neighbor of the latest convicted serial killer).[/quote]
Okay. But the serial killer is immoral because he kills other people for his own sick pleasure. That’s an action he takes against others, they way he has treated other people. Like I said… his morality.
Let’s use an opposite example to expose the fallacy of your argument:
A good and decent man by all standards has a few too many at the pub and runs a stop sign, sliding into a family of four, killing them all. It is his first offense, and he never drinks this much… it was his brother’s wake. Do we convict him of vehicular manslaughter? Does he not get the DUI because he’s such a moral pillar of the community except for this one time?
Your actions determine your morality.
Their (or anyone’s, for that matter) sexual behavior isn’t subject to a negative moral judgment until harm is done. And even then, the context of the situation must be considered before labelling a “good” or “bad” to it. I can’t see how sex could be immoral between two consenting adults, do you? Maybe kinky (all right! handcuffs!) or weird (why is this chick licking my armpit?), but immoral? Hmmm… that’s a tough one.
[quote]The facts are that several hundred years ago children of age 12 on up got married. They were not considered children at that age. So the “definition” of an adult has changed with societies values.
So the point is valid and something you should look at.[/quote]
I don’t know if you realize it, but you just confirmed that once again real morality is a relative thing. Society used to label a woman who wore a skirt above the knee as “evil”. A relative thing. There are no realistic absolutes. Pure good and pure evil do not exist.
Wrong. People do immoral things because they decide to act without compassion, kindness, courage, honesty, or generosity. A moral foundation is found by a man when he embraces the concept of what it means for all of us to get along with each other in happiness. When you act against this, you slide into the territory of doing wrong.
[quote]Next, Zeb and I have stated many times that we don’t condemn gays as humans, we condemn their behavior, which is separate from who they are. You are the one who keeps defining them by their behavior. So you may want to stop throwing that hate term around as no one is buying it.
[/quote]
People are defined by their behavior. LOL Even Batman in “Batman Begins” knows this. I’m sorry… I don’t make up the rules here. This is the real world. Example: I hate fat people because of what they do to themselves, and by proxy, to all of us. I don’t hate the fat cells of their body which are overloaded with lipid molecules. Big difference.
Frowny face.