U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 07:21 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,637,274 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
We all know that murder without conditions (like self-defense) is an absolute. Cheating on your spouse, without her approval and without conditions, (like a gun to your head) is an absolute evil. Relative evil is cheating on your spouse with her approval. On one hand you are not hurting anybody at all, but on another you are breaking what some view as a religious commandment. Here, there is a conflict of morals that nobody has a right to define for another person. This relative right versus wrong is between a person and their creator, but not one for a government to make as it is an adult decision to make.

What he is talking about is how some people believe they know, in pure absolutes, all that is right and wrong. This would mean they are the authority of right and wrong which means we all should live under this person's tyranny. This form of thinking in anti-american and anti-freedom.

American living is a person that lives within their own state of nature without any kind of government interference. The only time a government should intervene is in a conflict between two people in their own state of nature and also to secure the rights of a whole.

America would be a monarchy or communistic form of government if a church, a group of people or majority through votes were allowed to define right and wrong outside of actual conflicts. Our founders wrote the constitution with this philosphy as to get away from the tyranny of english nobles and the church of england. Most of the founders believed in christianity, but they believed it had no part in government legislation.

In Federalist paper no.54, james madison states that we would not need government if men were angels. And a set of checks and balances needed to be set as the government would not be run by angels. If any part of the three branches gained power in another brance, tyranny was more than just a probability. The same goes with using a religious reference to define right and wrong. If we use one religious reference, then we will have a tryannical government like england with the church of england.

We all know what a conflict is and it is a clash between two different people in their own state of nature. No two people will be the same, ever. We should never tell people how to live within their own state. We can only resolve issues that pertain to one person invading the rights, liberty and justice of another.

You make a reasonable argument. I appreciate the well though-out comments. I would have to say that I disagree though. Is something right simply because government deems it acceptable? If society determines it ok? What if society determines that murder is on par with cheating on a spouse?

Morality is not subject to the feelings of people. I believe morality is given to us by God, and he sets the standard.

 
Unread 06-17-2011, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Tampa, Florida
10,205 posts, read 8,167,354 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Morality is not subject to the feelings of people. I believe morality is given to us by God, and he sets the standard.
And, as Judge Walker so eloquently noted in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, moral justification is not enough to legalize discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Vaughn Walker
An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the votersí determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.
Ethics...not morals...may be subject to legislation. You can completely remove religious morals from the equation and make an ethical argument against taking of someone's life or property, committing acts of violence, fraud and what not. It is impossible to do that on matters of homosexuality and since America is a secular nation, these laws are now being thrown out.
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 08:00 AM
 
928 posts, read 833,662 times
Reputation: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
You make a reasonable argument. I appreciate the well though-out comments. I would have to say that I disagree though. Is something right simply because government deems it acceptable? If society determines it ok? What if society determines that murder is on par with cheating on a spouse?

Morality is not subject to the feelings of people. I believe morality is given to us by God, and he sets the standard.
It may be given to us by God, but there is the problem of who's god. The battle to define morality would be by catholics, lutherans and etc. After all, there can only be one truth by one god. This would lead us down the road to nobility and eventual tyranny.

We just have to let people decide their own paths and let debatable morality be between people and their creator. Jesus did indicate this to be a fact of life too in the bible.
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 08:04 AM
 
Location: West-ish, wishing for Benson-ish
54 posts, read 83,528 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I guarantee I can name something that you would consider to be evil under any circumstance.
Yes, I'm sure you could. I am also positive that you would agree with a majority of the Satanist "commandments" based on your morals. But there are other religions that have similar morals also and would also agree. There are atheists who even have better morals than the average Christian who would also agree. What is the context?

Again, as a non-believer, why should I buy into your OPINIONS?

I am happy that you have faith in your religion, but the law is not just and does not give everyone equal rights. Call it civil union if you want, but they deserve to have an equivalent.

Also, with the hetero divorce rate so high, how can we deny G/L/T? It's not like we are running the best business model right now.
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 09:02 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,637,274 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senrab+Omaha=MissingChica View Post
Yes, I'm sure you could. I am also positive that you would agree with a majority of the Satanist "commandments" based on your morals.
I'm not familiar with those commandments. Could you elaborate please?
Quote:

But there are other religions that have similar morals also and would also agree. There are atheists who even have better morals than the average Christian who would also agree. What is the context?
Probably. There are some "Christians" who are horribly immoral. But I would hesitate to suggest they are really followers of Christ if they don't keep his commands.
Quote:
Again, as a non-believer, why should I buy into your OPINIONS?
I don't expect you to.
Quote:
I am happy that you have faith in your religion, but the law is not just and does not give everyone equal rights. Call it civil union if you want, but they deserve to have an equivalent.
They can and do get married. Married is not about love or attraction, as far as the law is concerned.
Quote:
Also, with the hetero divorce rate so high, how can we deny G/L/T? It's not like we are running the best business model right now.
With the hetero divorce rate so high, why would we want to weaken it further?
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: West-ish, wishing for Benson-ish
54 posts, read 83,528 times
Reputation: 33
[quote=Calvinist;19630681]I'm not familiar with those commandments. Could you elaborate please?[quote]

Surprisingly basic. Again I point out the protection of children. Fairly basic decent human being stuff here:
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in anotherís lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
Some are extreme, but most seem decent to me. Also please do not criticize 7. I am not a Satanist, but the bible is full of magic as well. You believe in it, so they should have the same right to believe in their magic.

[quote] Probably. There are some "Christians" who are horribly immoral. But I would hesitate to suggest they are really followers of Christ if they don't keep his commands.[quote]

Denying people of their societal rights would be immoral in my opinion. As Bosco said, this is not a morality issue, nor an ethical issue.

[quote]They can and do get married. Married is not about love or attraction, as far as the law is concerned. [quote]

Not legally in most states. And not to someone of the same gender which they should be entitiled to do.

Quote:
With the hetero divorce rate so high, why would we want to weaken it further?
How would it weaken it? It's already weak. If hetero's who think this is such a huge problem focused on helping the young married couples of today w/counciling instead of opposing same sex marriage, maybe the percentage wouldn't be that high.

Granted I don't even know if marriage is natural (I am happily married, and have discussed this with my wife). I think that ensuring procreation was a large reason why the current model came to be.
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 09:58 AM
 
928 posts, read 833,662 times
Reputation: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I'm not familiar with those commandments. Could you elaborate please?

Probably. There are some "Christians" who are horribly immoral. But I would hesitate to suggest they are really followers of Christ if they don't keep his commands.

I don't expect you to.

They can and do get married. Married is not about love or attraction, as far as the law is concerned.


With the hetero divorce rate so high, why would we want to weaken it further?
You do know that your reasoning "
They can and do get married. Married is not about love or attraction, as far as the law is concerned. " was the same reason given for interracial marriage etc. This is most definetely an improper tactic to use based on its qualifyers.

The same statements were also used when defining the role of a black person using the US constitution etc. You have to get past this type of hyperbole statement and begin leveling in your conversations. Until then, you are extending a tactic used for opression throughout american history.

Also, that very same statement is commonly used when all other tried arguments are not succesfull.

Last edited by Omahahonors; 06-17-2011 at 10:07 AM..
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 10:28 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,637,274 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senrab+Omaha=MissingChica View Post


Surprisingly basic. Again I point out the protection of children. Fairly basic decent human being stuff here:
1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in anotherís lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm little children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
Some are extreme, but most seem decent to me. Also please do not criticize 7. I am not a Satanist, but the bible is full of magic as well. You believe in it, so they should have the same right to believe in their magic.
That sounds an awful lot like "do unto others". But what makes those right or wrong?

As for the "magic" in the Bible? No. There really isn't. God did some miracles---but not by "magic". There is mention of sorcers or divination, but it's condemned.
Quote:


Denying people of their societal rights would be immoral in my opinion. As Bosco said, this is not a morality issue, nor an ethical issue.

I don't do that. You may argue over what a "civil right" is...and that's a fair argument to have. But the constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to marry for love or attraction.
Quote:

Not legally in most states. And not to someone of the same gender which they should be entitiled to do.
Not the same gender, no--but they do have the exact same rules to live by that I do. You need to make the case that homosexuality is a genetic trait and that homosexuals are somehow a third "gender" that the current marriage laws would not apply to. That case has not been made yet. This country has never considered the sexual preference of a person when granting a marriage license. I wasn't asked the question...why should anyone else?
Quote:


How would it weaken it? It's already weak. If hetero's who think this is such a huge problem focused on helping the young married couples of today w/counciling instead of opposing same sex marriage, maybe the percentage wouldn't be that high.

Granted I don't even know if marriage is natural (I am happily married, and have discussed this with my wife). I think that ensuring procreation was a large reason why the current model came to be.
Because it would be declaring it something that didn't need to be protected and changing the definition to whatever the majority wanted. Marriage was ordained by God as a man/woman.

Instead of making it easier to get "married" we need to lift it up and celebrate it as something special--not just as a contract that any 2 yahoos can enter into on a whim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omahahonors View Post
You do know that your reasoning "They can and do get married. Married is not about love or attraction, as far as the law is concerned. " was the same reason given for interracial marriage etc. This is most definetely an improper tactic to use based on its qualifyers.
What "qualifiers"? Prove that homosexuality is a genetic trait such as skin color and we'll talk. Until then I stand by my statement.
Quote:


The same statements were also used when defining the role of a black person using the US constitution etc. You have to get past this type of hyperbole statement and begin leveling in your conversations. Until then, you are extending a tactic used for opression throughout american history.

Also, that very same statement is commonly used when all other tried arguments are not succesfull.
Again...black skin does not equate with who you sleep with. As for using it when "other tried arguments are not successful"? I honestly don't care. If it's such a weak argument, then counter it.
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 10:39 AM
 
928 posts, read 833,662 times
Reputation: 509
Here's an example, Calvinst of how your statement on this being fair works:

There are many different forms of 'statin' drugs for cholestrol. Let's say somebody, but not everybody determines that god believes it is unnatural for a body to absorb lipitor despite its success. The other statin drugs are approved for dispensing and it works for many people. Then some people that switched from lipitor to other statin drugs did not respond very well decided to vocalize their displeasure. The response by the FDA and society is: god said your body's reaction is unnatural. No other reason behind it works because any other reason would be absurd.

This is the same thing.
 
Unread 06-17-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
2,648 posts, read 3,292,911 times
Reputation: 2576
Playing Hardball on Softball - Page 1 - Brent Bozell - Townhall Conservative
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top