USC dumb

Status
Not open for further replies.
#53
#53
justingroves said:
I didn't mean that towards you.

It should have read "Why do people care what others do behind closed doors"?
Click to expand...

Some would argue that they don't, but somehow two gay people getting to use the label of "marriage" somehow subtracts from their traditional heterosexual marriage.

I've heard some very intelligent people make those comments, but I've never heard one really be able to defend it without resorting to religion (which shouldn't be valid in a matter of civil government policy).
 
#56
#56
IPorange said:
Lol, it's their decision as to whether they get to dictate other people's decisions.
Click to expand...

True dat. I couldn't care less what people do behind closed doors. I didn't realize it didn't pass out there, it was just apparently a poor attempt at a joke/sarcasm
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
IPorange said:
Some would argue that they don't, but somehow two gay people getting to use the label of "marriage" somehow subtracts from their traditional heterosexual marriage.

I've heard some very intelligent people make those comments, but I've never heard one really be able to defend it without resorting to religion (which shouldn't be valid in a matter of civil government policy).
Click to expand...


With all of that being said, I agree with this arguement and do not support gay marriage. I do believe they should be definately be allowed to have a civil union. They should have all rights of marriage, but disagree with it being called "marriage" which is a religious state that happens to be recognized by government as a benefit to society and the country.

But, as you have already stated, i'm sure you have heard that arguement before and would be unable to sway you from your stance as your attempts to sway me would likely be futile as well.

Back to football..... I do hate USC now and just as the op was trying to say, I think the AD is a goofball.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
IPorange said:
Some would argue that they don't, but somehow two gay people getting to use the label of "marriage" somehow subtracts from their traditional heterosexual marriage.

I've heard some very intelligent people make those comments, but I've never heard one really be able to defend it without resorting to religion (which shouldn't be valid in a matter of civil government policy).
Click to expand...
Why do religious people have less right to moral opinion than non-religious people? You tell me where non-religious people get their right to moral outlook? This will be a fun discussion if we are going to break down where moral law comes from...

I'm all ears.
 
#60
#60
Orange_Crush said:
Why do religious people have less right to moral opinion than non-religious people? You tell me where non-religious people get their right to moral outlook? This will be a fun discussion if we are going to break down where moral law comes from...

I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Who said those rights are different? The argument is that one's rights areno more important than the other's, hence you can't force your opinion on me and you can't make arbitrary discriminatory rules.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#62
#62
Orange_Crush said:
Why do religious people have less right to moral opinion than non-religious people? You tell me where non-religious people get their right to moral outlook? This will be a fun discussion if we are going to break down where moral law comes from...

I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Supporting gay marriage is not forcing any one to get married. Being anti-gay marriage is forcing some people to not be able to be married. Those who are against gay marriage are projecting their morals onto other people. Those who are for it are not, at least not on that issue (who knows what other opinions an individual might have).

The only people who believe all moral law comes from religion are, not shockingly, religious people. They think since that is where their moral beliefs originate, then all people of similar ancestry must also have their moral laws originate there. That is not the case. Moral laws can be simplified as rules that benefit society as a whole. That's less than divine, and much more practical. Do all non-judeochristian cultures have no morals? No. They may have some different morals in some cases, but they have morals.

One might also point out that what is moral "now" wasn't what was moral at the time in the Bible, throughout it's scriptures. So it isn't the unchanging source of all morality like some see it, unless someone views it in a more spiritual, metaphysical light-- and then they are falling into a circular logic of morality being divine because God gave it to us because it's divine.
 
#64
#64
BigPapaVol said:
Who said those rights are different? The argument is that one's rights areno more important than the other's, hence you can't force your opinion on me and you can't make arbitrary discriminatory rules.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
The post that I responded to inferred that I don't have the right to vote based on my religious beliefs. That sounds like the discrimination, BPV.

If my basis is established as religious, then by definition it is not 'arbitrary', whether you agree with it or not. If neither I nor a homosexual can marry someone of the same sex, then it is not discriminatory. So, you are wrong on both counts.

My question was why your, his or a homosexual's basis for belief in moral acceptablility is any more acceptable than my basis for moral acceptablility. Who decides? Especially, outside of religion, who decides? Outside of religion, you are citing a relativistic moral code to try to convince me that I'm wrong and you're right.

I ask if you can see the problem with that.

Now, with all that said, tell me why I don't get to vote my conscience in a democratic government...
 
#65
#65
BloodRUNZOrange said:
yeah ...cuz its obamas fault BP wanted to save money and do a half ass job making sure their riggs where safe...

this is why our country is in the shape it is. is because people are to stupid to find out who they need to be mad at.
Click to expand...

Failing to allow foreign vessels that wanted to help, forcing them to drill far offshore where well capping is much more difficult and less safe, giving them a safety award and not having any oversight and having a BP lobbyist in the inner circle for Obama?

Yeah he should not get any blame at all...

Criticizing the head of BP for showing up at a charity event for yachting when he has played more golf than Tiger Woods since the spill was the most hypocritical and hilarious thing of all.

The Emperor is naked.
 
#66
#66
BeecherVol said:
This thread is gay.
Click to expand...

9krti0.jpg
 
#67
#67
IPorange said:
Supporting gay marriage is not forcing any one to get married. Being anti-gay marriage is forcing some people to not be able to be married. Those who are against gay marriage are projecting their morals onto other people. Those who are for it are not, at least not on that issue (who knows what other opinions an individual might have).
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it is deciding what is right or wrong for society. We do it all the time. These decisions are forced on people all the time. If you don't agree, try holding up a bank or even driving 120 mph through Knoxville. Someone's thought of right/wrong will be forced on you.

Now... Just because you disagree with me on what is right and wrong, please tell me why I don't get a vote.

IPorange said:
The only people who believe all moral law comes from religion are, not shockingly, religious people. They think since that is where their moral beliefs originate, then all people of similar ancestry must also have their moral laws originate there. That is not the case. Moral laws can be simplified as rules that benefit society as a whole. That's less than divine, and much more practical. Do all non-judeochristian cultures have no morals? No. They may have some different morals in some cases, but they have morals.
Click to expand...

You aren't making sense. You define 'moral law' as "rules that benefit society as a whole" but in the same breath try to deny that society from making such laws. Gay marriage has been voted down because the majority of society doesn't want it.

So, do you actually mean: "moral laws are rules that I agree with?"

Now, in what HAS to break down to a relative moral code (outside of religion it does anyway) please tell me where you have more right to choose your basis than I have to choose mine.

IPorange said:
One might also point out that what is moral "now" wasn't what was moral at the time in the Bible, throughout it's scriptures. So it isn't the unchanging source of all morality like some see it, unless someone views it in a more spiritual, metaphysical light-- and then they are falling into a circular logic of morality being divine because God gave it to us because it's divine.
Click to expand...

One could, and I guess you did. But it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

(I don't get the circular logic bit. It should read instead: God is divine. He have us the moral law based on His divine character.

Now, where do you get yours? We can have a LOT of fun with that logic, since you want to play in that sandbox.)
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
What is beneficial for society?

I would argue, and many have, that the continuation of said society should be above all else. Leaving religion out, take a look at mother nature itself. Procriation is the most beneficial effect of marriage for society, this country, and the species.

In the end, as someone already said, I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. But marriage, by definition, is between one man and one woman. We can create other unions between individuals or even stretch the rules even further and call it something else but it's not marriage.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#70
#70
Orange_Crush said:
At the end of the day, it is deciding what is right or wrong for society. We do it all the time. These decisions are forced on people all the time. If you don't agree, try holding up a bank or even driving 120 mph through Knoxville. Someone's thought of right/wrong will be forced on you.

Now... Just because you disagree with me on what is right and wrong, please tell me why I don't get a vote.



You aren't making sense. You define 'moral law' as "rules that benefit society as a whole" but in the same breath try to deny that society from making such laws. Gay marriage has been voted down because the majority of society doesn't want it.

So, do you actually mean: "moral laws are rules that I agree with?"

Now, in what HAS to break down to a relative moral code (outside of religion it does anyway) please tell me where you have more right to choose your basis than I have to choose mine.



One could, and I guess you did. But it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

(I don't get the circular logic bit. It should read instead: God is divine. He have us the moral law based on His divine character.

Now, where do you get yours? We can have a LOT of fun with that logic, since you want to play in that sandbox.)
Click to expand...

I never said you shouldn't get a vote. I said you shouldn't be able to vote your own religious morality onto other people. This America, not Iran.

I didn't define "moral law," I said they can be simplified as a core concept. My point is that we stray away from that core concept when we start overtly mixing in religious superstition.

I never said I had more right to choose my basis than you. I said you have no right to project your beliefs on others. Two people marrying in no way compares to going 120 mph on a road, because it doesn't endanger you in any way, or interfere with your life.

I grew up in a Western nation with roots in judeochristian traditions, so those are the sorts of laws I most identify with. My morality is formed through my own sense of what is right and wrong, which is usually a function of what is fair or how I would like to be treated in their shoes. Compassion for my fellow man.

That doesn't mean I should blur the line of not stealing or murdering with stoning gays and forcing women who are menstruating to leave town. Yet, some seem to like to pick and choose.

So we got moral laws from the divine, and they reflect his divine character? Do you believe to reject there being a divine character or being as morally unlawful? If so, how do you reconcile this with our nation's freedom of religion?

What about cultures who do not believe in your concept of God? Are they devoid of morals?
 
#71
#71
Nashvol2 said:
What is beneficial for society?

I would argue, and many have, that the continuation of said society should be above all else. Leaving religion out, take a look at mother nature itself. Procriation is the most beneficial effect of marriage for society, this country, and the species.

In the end, as someone already said, I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. But marriage, by definition, is between one man and one woman. We can create other unions between individuals or even stretch the rules even further and call it something else but it's not marriage.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So you think barren married couples are bad for the country?
 
#72
#72
I have an idea. Since we have a politics forum, why don't we get a religion one and everybody can go to town in there?
 
#73
#73
hmanvolfan said:
I have an idea. Since we have a politics forum, why don't we get a religion one and everybody can go to town in there?
Click to expand...

I've often wondered why we shove religion into the politics forum.


In any case, I have caused this thread to get derailed twice, so I am going to bow out. We all know each other's POV's anyway and no one is going to budge. We will just have to agree to think each other idiots and move on in the great American tradition.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top