_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

[Gramps]

So no one has answered, so we all agree that that the best thing this law could possibly do is deny equal rights to the LGBTS community. Pretty easy to decide that this proposal is whack. :good!:

I don't think it is a religious. issue per say with congress. They are going to pander
to their voters. Like it or not the largest block of voters are older people. As a general rule of thumb, the older the voter the more opposed to gay marriage.
Everyone that is opposed.is not religious . It is a moral issue for them. They look at
gay relationships as a sickening. act and do not want any part of it and do not want it around them.
The younger the voter, the more open to gay marriage.

it will eventually be legalized but will be a few years, IMO.

 

[milohimself]

Actually some of the toughest opposition to equal rights for lgbt comes from black communities

 

[PKT_VOL]

Christians do not have a right to vote to restrict the liberties of others where no harm is caused from allowing such liberty. No political philosopher would cede such a right to anyone; not Hobbes, Locke, Mandeville, Hume, Smith, etc. Legislation is not meant simply to make individuals happy that their preferences are being met and that those who would rather act contrary to one's preference are prohibited from so doing. Legislation should simply be used in order to facilitate the most amount of liberty for individuals (this is why the government should never have gotten involved in marriages in the first place).

As for the great commission, it has nothing to do with government coercion. Go forth and make disciples of all men, if they refuse, wipe the dust from your feet and move on. Maybe the bigots in the US who want to deny equality to homosexuals should simply wipe the American dust from their feet and leave. That would more properly fit the spirit of the great commission.

First of all, good to see you back again.

Second, I don't think political philophers would necessarily agree with your interruption of them. Man has certain in-alienable rights, which were to be precluded from any subequent social contract. The instituiton of marriage was not one of them.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I believe that no sin out weighs the glory of God. If someone is truly repentant of past deeds,seeks Christ, then he or she is a new person in the eyes of God. They still owe a dept to the goverment but are paid in full with God.
Back to your example. Would a death bed conversation save a monster? Only God knows for sure.

The problem with this logic that it is unconditional. If a person is semi young and his sins are not what one might consider egregious, then your logic would make more sense (provided that he lives to normal life expectancy). However, by that same logic, Pol Pot could have found Jesus and repented for his sins during his last few days on Earth and be in good shape on judgement day. Having actually been to the killing fields (seeing heaping piles of bones and skulls) and seeing his prisons of torture with my own eyes, I cannot possibly except this logic or bow down to a God with this moral judgement.

 

[PKT_VOL]

While I respect the rights of gay people to do whatever they want, I have always known that homosexuality is not natural.

I will go ahead and end this argument before it starts. If you believe in evolution, then you cannot believe that homosexuality is a natural trait. You could make an argument for bisexuality, though.

Homosexuality is natural. It is found with many other animals. It is a genetic anomaly, no different than any other genetic disease.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Also, can I marry my dog? Because that would be so much less trouble. Then I could probably take a life insurance policy out on him if I managed to get him a job. I could collect that puppy (no pun intended) in another 5-10 years and be set for a while.

Fallacious notion. Marriage is an institution created in a civilized society of human beings. It would not nor could not progress to anything outside of human beings.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

I don't think it is a religious. issue per say with congress. They are going to pander
to their voters. Like it or not the largest block of voters are older people. As a general rule of thumb, the older the voter the more opposed to gay marriage.
Everyone that is opposed.is not religious . It is a moral issue for them. They look at
gay relationships as a sickening. act and do not want any part of it and do not want it around them.
The younger the voter, the more open to gay marriage.

it will eventually be legalized but will be a few years, IMO.

Makes sense. Thanks for the perspective :hi:

I definitely understand the mindset of the older generation, I just don't like it. You can't really help it of that concept is so engrained in your culture and identity as taboo.

 

[therealUT]

First of all, good to see you back again.

Second, I don't think political philophers would necessarily agree with your interruption of them. Man has certain in-alienable rights, which were to be precluded from any subequent social contract. The instituiton of marriage was not one of them.

Locke is the only social-contract philosopher of that ilk and, for Locke, there were no inalienable rights. One's life, liberty, and property belonged to the government as soon as the man consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to the government (at least, this is my understanding from his Second Treatise on Government).

For Hobbes, there is no social-contract (especially not in the sense that Rousseau presents it); there is simply the natural right to life and the natural law: liberty is sacrificed to the Leviathan for greater liberty.

Mandeville would say that man should do as he pleases, even if what he pleases is mostly vicious (short of murder) and that these acts will actually lead to the public good. Mandeville would be fervently opposed to any such laws restricting certain individuals from doing as they please.

Hume would simply say that if the passions drove one to marry another man, and that justice was not being violated in so doing, then go for it; after all, reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions.

 

[Thrasher865]

Homosexuality is natural. It is found with many other animals. It is a genetic anomaly, no different than any other genetic disease.

I guess you and I have a different intent when we refer to it as "natural."

I can see how you would define a genetic abnormality that also occurs in nature "natural", so I can't fault your logic.

 

[Thrasher865]

I guess accomodating to homosexuals' lifestyles is no different than trying to accomodate any other genetic disorder. We generally try to accept those with genetic disorders into normal society.

I am not trying to talk down to gay people by calling their sexual orientation a genetic disorder. That is simply what I believe to be true.

 

[therealUT]

I guess you and I have a different intent when we refer to it as "natural."

I can see how you would define a genetic abnormality that also occurs in nature "natural", so I can't fault your logic.

I guess accomodating to homosexuals' lifestyles is no different than trying to accomodate any other genetic disorder. We generally try to accept those with genetic disorders into normal society.

I am not trying to talk down to gay people by calling their sexual orientation a genetic disorder. That is simply what I believe to be true.

I think you are equivocating in using disorder as a synonym for anomaly. An irregularity or abnormality, is not inherently opposed to order.

While this may be seen as simply a semantic point, it does function in society. It can be argued that 'order' is inherently valuable; therefore, there is some type of obligation to correct disorders. The same cannot be said regarding 'normalcy'; there is no inherent value in normalcy; therefore, something can be abnormal and there is no external obligation to make it normal.

Normal has no inherent value; the value is tacked on by external actors who desire simply desire likeness and familiarity. Some would argue (J.S. Mill comes to mind) that likeness and familiarity are actually opposed to value and opposed to any greater progression both in nature and in human society.

 

[therealUT]

Homosexuality is natural. It is found with many other animals. It is a genetic anomaly, no different than any other genetic disease.

I think your use of 'disease' here was a bit careless. You would have been fine to simply stop after "genetic anomaly"; I, too, sometimes get carried away trying to emphasize a correct point and make an egregious error.

disease, n.
Pronunciation: /dɪˈziːz/
Forms: ME deses, deisese, disseease, dishese, ME disese, dissese, desese, dysese, ME disess, dicese, dicees(e, diseese, diseasse, desesse, deseas, deseyce, dyses, dysesse, dyshese, -sese, -ase, -easse, -eze, -zese, -eysse, ME–15 dysease, dyssease, Sc. diseis, 15 desease, disseyse, dysseasse, Sc. dises, ME– disease.
Etymology: Middle English di- , desese , < Anglo-Norman disease, desaese (Stat. Rich. II), Old French desaise, -ayse (14th cent. in Godefroy), < des- , dis- prefix 1d + aise ease n.
1.
a. Absence of ease; uneasiness, discomfort; inconvenience, annoyance; disquiet, disturbance; trouble.
b. A cause of discomfort or distress; a trouble, an annoyance, a grievance.
2. A condition of the body, or of some part or organ of the body, in which its functions are disturbed or deranged; a morbid physical condition; ‘a departure from the state of health, especially when caused by structural change’
a. gen. The condition of being (more or less seriously) out of health; illness, sickness.
b. An individual case or instance of such a condition; an illness, ailment, malady, disorder.
c. Any one of the various kinds of such conditions; a species of disorder or ailment, exhibiting special symptoms or affecting a special organ.
3. fig. A deranged, depraved, or morbid condition (of mind or disposition, of the affairs of a community, etc.); an evil affection or tendency.

I am pretty sure that you did not mean "disease".

 

[Thrasher865]

While this may be seen as simply a semantic point, it does function in society. It can be argued that 'order' is inherently valuable; therefore, there is some type of obligation to correct disorders. The same cannot be said regarding 'normalcy'; there is no inherent value in normalcy; therefore, something can be abnormal and there is no external obligation to make it normal.

Normal has no inherent value; the value is tacked on by external actors who desire simply desire likeness and familiarity. Some would argue (J.S. Mill comes to mind) that likeness and familiarity are actually opposed to value and opposed to any greater progression both in nature and in human society.

Does ability to reproduce count as an advantage?

 

[Thrasher865]

I think your use of 'disease' here was a bit careless. You would have been fine to simply stop after "genetic anomaly"; I, too, sometimes get carried away trying to emphasize a correct point and make an egregious error.



I am pretty sure that you did not mean "disease".

3. fig. A deranged, depraved, or morbid condition (of mind or disposition, of the affairs of a community, etc.); an evil affection or tendency.

Maybe he is a christian

 

[therealUT]

Does ability to reproduce count as an advantage?

I am thinking aloud here, but my initial thoughts are as follows:

Only the ability to reproduce and beget greater value counts as an advantage.

I would have a hard time saying that there is any advantage or value in a single-celled organism that only begets identical single-celled organisms. In the same manner, I would have a hard time saying there is any advantage or value in human beings who only produce an identical species; if two human beings are needed to produce one, then when the parents die, value would be lost; if they produce two, then the result would be value-neutral; if they produced more than two, then you eventually reach a point in which the resources are too scarce to support the organisms (theoretically). Therefore, the advantage and value must lie in producing more efficient complex organisms (however one chooses to define efficiency); this, of course, requires genetic mutation and anomaly. Hence, genetic anomalies are required for progression; not all genetic anomalies are going to work out, but to try to argue that genetic anomalies must be treated as genetic disorders or diseases, and must be corrected would actually, if generalized, produce natural regression.

Again, this is just me thinking aloud.

Note: I do not subscribe to such a theory of value; I am simply commenting within what I take to be the perspective of Mill and those who argue for evolutionary progression. Personally, I think that all rational beings are of absolute (i.e., infinite) value.

 

[utvolpj]

Does ability to reproduce count as an advantage?

is that a requirement for marriage? Is that a requirement to receive spousal benefits?

 

[Thrasher865]

I think the discussion has progressed beyond marriage while you were out, PJ. That wasn't what the post was discussing. I know you're trying to stay on topic cuz you're a mod, but sometimes you just have to roll with it. It goes back to an earlier point that was probably somehow related to gay marriage.

 

[utvolpj]

I think the discussion has progressed beyond marriage while you were out, PJ. That wasn't what the post was discussing. I know you're trying to stay on topic cuz you're a mod, but sometimes you just have to roll with it. It goes back to an earlier point that was probably somehow related to gay marriage.

being a mod has nothing to do with it, especially in this forum. Why don't you drop the bias toward a simple title on a website

You're trying to label reproduction as a natural advantage to hetero couples yet even that does not exist in all examples. Although I suppose you could explain that off again as accepting those with genetic disorders into normal society.

of course one could argue that once the thread traveled down the slippery slope of comparing the marriage of homosexuals to dogs the thread was sufficiently derailed

 

[Thrasher865]

I am thinking aloud here, but my initial thoughts are as follows:

Only the ability to reproduce and beget greater value counts as an advantage.

I would have a hard time saying that there is any advantage or value in a single-celled organism that only begets identical single-celled organisms. In the same manner, I would have a hard time saying there is any advantage or value in human beings who only produce an identical species; if two human beings are needed to produce one, then when the parents die, value would be lost; if they produce two, then the result would be value-neutral; if they produced more than two, then you eventually reach a point in which the resources are too scarce to support the organisms (theoretically). Therefore, the advantage and value must lie in producing more efficient complex organisms (however one chooses to define efficiency); this, of course, requires genetic mutation and anomaly. Hence, genetic anomalies are required for progression; not all genetic anomalies are going to work out, but to try to argue that genetic anomalies must be treated as genetic disorders or diseases, and must be corrected would actually, if generalized, produce natural regression.

Again, this is just me thinking aloud.

Note: I do not subscribe to such a theory of value; I am simply commenting within what I take to be the perspective of Mill and those who argue for evolutionary progression. Personally, I think that all rational beings are of absolute (i.e., infinite) value.

I sort of had some of the thoughts that are buried in all that. What it goes back to for me is the fact that a genetic mutation that causes homosexuality is not going to produce a positive effect on the lineage of man, so I would call it a disorder.

 

[Thrasher865]

being a mod has nothing to do with it, especially in this forum. Why don't you drop the bias toward a simple title on a website

Breathing exercises.

You're trying to label reproduction as a natural advantage to hetero couples yet even that does not exist in all examples. Although I suppose you could explain that off again as accepting those with genetic disorders into normal society.

I don't understand this part. How would the ability to reproduce be presented as anything but an evolutionary advantage? Maybe I've just misunderstood.

Or are you talking micro, and I'm talking macro?

of course one could argue that once the thread traveled down the slippery slope of comparing the marriage of homosexuals to dogs the thread was sufficiently derailed

you're welcome

 

[utvolpj]

I don't understand this part. How would the ability to reproduce be presented as anything but an evolutionary advantage? Maybe I've just misunderstood.

do you view hetero couples that can't reproduce in the same manner you view homosexual couples? Are they all suffering from a genetic disorder?

 

[Thrasher865]

Some of them, yes. Some of them may have a disorder that presented itself after birth from some sort of environmental cause, etc.

 

[Thrasher865]

If you're taking disorder as an insult, think of it as a purely scientific term.

 

[utvolpj]

Some of them, yes. Some of them may have a disorder that presented itself after birth from some sort of environmental cause, etc.

if that is the case then I would guess the majority of the population has undesirable genetic traits. Are you going on a crusade after all of those also or just the ones you don't approve of?

also still goes to my previous question- are they less deserving of rights?

If you're taking disorder as an insult, think of it as a purely scientific term.

I believe your posts have shown that is not the direction you are taking

 

[Thrasher865]

WTF? A crusade? Are you serious? Check my very first post in this thread, before I respond to any more of your defamatory posts! Good day, sir!