Poll: Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized Nationally?

Page 79 of 79 FirstFirst ... 2969777879
Results 1,171 to 1,181 of 1181

Thread: For or Against Gay Marriage

  1. #1171
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Since I last posted, I have actually changed my views a little. I think it's acceptable for gay marriage to be outlawed if the majority would support such a decision.
    and I have clarified mine. It is a right to sign what ever contract you want and live together and such. That cannot be morally outlawed. Further societal support does not need to be outlawed merely not given. That is why the word 'outlaw' sends up red flags for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    There's more to human rights than what the government says you can have. Just because the government says something is illegal doesn't make it unethical.
    Quite true, as is the inverse: Just because the government says something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Marriage is different from your typical right because it's simply the government acknowledging that you and your partner can share various insurance and welfare benefits. A couple can declare themselves married with or without a government marriage license, they just can't expect marriage benefits without one.
    Any benefits are the sole jurisdiction of the benefit provider only constrained by the promises that provider made. In this case the government or insurance companies.

    This is text-book privilege as opposed to right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I believe that government action should be determined exclusively by the will of the majority, so long as the minorities are always free to express their views, should social circumstances change in their favor. If the majority of people think the state should recognize gay marriages, then it should be that way.
    I believe that government action should have no artificial constraints as following the will of the majority; only absolute constraints on the respect of rights.

    The government should be a tool through which the will of some segment of the population is fulfilled. I say some segment because we will never have a perfectly unanimous aim. It does not matter how big that segment is except through the practical matter that more people have more resources than few.

    Let no segment speak for another, and if it is the majorities will; all things being equal the action will have the resources of the majority of the populace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    What do you think "live and let live" means? If the majority of a population would support officially recognized gay marriage, why should the government not act accordingly?
    Liberty means you do not interfere with others unless they interfere with you. If the majority of the population would support and officialy recognize homosexual marriage than the government representing that majority and only that majority can act accordingly.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  2. #1172
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893

  3. #1173
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    13
    Gansao, I haven't recently suggested gay marriage alone is necessarily a right. I say if the majority wants it, the majority should have it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    and I have clarified mine. It is a right to sign what ever contract you want and live together and such. That cannot be morally outlawed. Further societal support does not need to be outlawed merely not given. That is why the word 'outlaw' sends up red flags for me.
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I haven't recently suggested outlawing or legalizing anything unless the majority wants it that way, with some exceptions like murder, etc.

    Quite true, as is the inverse: Just because the government says something is legal doesn't make it ethical.
    Never said that was the case. What I believe is a right is that the Sovereignty should rest with the majority of voters. We don't necessarily have a right to officially recognized gay marriage, but we have every right to tell the government if we want it or not.

    Any benefits are the sole jurisdiction of the benefit provider only constrained by the promises that provider made. In this case the government or insurance companies. This is text-book privilege as opposed to right.
    The thing is, I've always believed that if someone is paying you money, that makes them your employer. And since politicians are living off taxpayer money, I say that means that they are obligated to serve us, not the other way around.

    As for companies, where would even the most clever businessman be without someone to buy what they offer? I'm not saying that companies should add gay partners to their insurance benefits, but I am saying that people have every right to get upset about it, since the companies survive on their money. There's no such thing as independent success.

    I believe that government action should have no artificial constraints as following the will of the majority; only absolute constraints on the respect of rights.
    Then you don't believe in democracy.

    The government should be a tool through which the will of some segment of the population is fulfilled.
    That's every government on earth. We call it democracy when that segment is the majority of voters. When it's the industry leaders and corporate elites, we call it plutocracy. For the head of state, it's an autocracy. You get the idea.

    I say some segment because we will never have a perfectly unanimous aim.
    That's obvious.

    It does not matter how big that segment is except through the practical matter that more people have more resources than few.

    Let no segment speak for another, and if it is the majorities will; all things being equal the action will have the resources of the majority of the populace.
    Oh, so the people don't matter, only their money does? When a government caters to whoever has the most resources, we call it "corruption."

    Liberty means you do not interfere with others unless they interfere with you. If the majority of the population would support and officialy recognize homosexual marriage than the government representing that majority and only that majority can act accordingly.
    Then what point are you trying to make? That's what I've been saying all along.

  4. #1174
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Lesbian. My link was not a direct reply to your posts. The debate still rages in Europe and decisions in Europe can have a knock on effect in other parts of the world. Our PM is supporting gay marriage when the ECHR does not. He says that the church would be exempt from discrimination laws if it refused to marry gays but the ECHR has said it would not. Its a can of worms over hear and this may or may not be of interest to people in the US...you may have the same problem down the line....

  5. #1175
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I haven't recently suggested outlawing or legalizing anything unless the majority wants it that way, with some exceptions like murder, etc.
    Interesting, what defines that excepted category? What is beyond the dominion of the majority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    The thing is, I've always believed that if someone is paying you money, that makes them your employer. And since politicians are living off taxpayer money, I say that means that they are obligated to serve us, not the other way around.
    As their employer it is our responsibility to define exactly what we want done, i.e. the terms. That is not how this government is setup, they are supposed to represent us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    As for companies, where would even the most clever businessman be without someone to buy what they offer? I'm not saying that companies should add gay partners to their insurance benefits, but I am saying that people have every right to get upset about it, since the companies survive on their money. There's no such thing as independent success.
    To get upset is about the only right. If it's profitable to give special deals to homosexual couples they will do it, no one has a right to force them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Then you don't believe in democracy.
    When a wise king rules they call it monarchy, when a cruel king rules they call it tyranny.

    Mob rule is technically democracy, the taxes imposed on the American colonies were imposed by parliament not the king; the king was an easy target but it was republic that were being rebelled against.

    If we are asking who should be given the power to violate rights I say there is no right answer but 'no one'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    That's every government on earth. We call it democracy when that segment is the majority of voters. When it's the industry leaders and corporate elites, we call it plutocracy. For the head of state, it's an autocracy. You get the idea.
    My point is the segment doesn't matter so long as that segment is not given power over the whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Oh, so the people don't matter, only their money does? When a government caters to whoever has the most resources, we call it "corruption."
    Lol, money matters when money is being spent. When anyone, not just government; takes money or possessions without permission it's called "theft".

    When all contribute to government actions the exact same amount each shall be an equal partner in those actions.

    It would be only corruption if money could pay for immorality. It is no better for immorality to be committed despite bribes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Then what point are you trying to make? That's what I've been saying all along.
    Good
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  6. #1176
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Interesting, what defines that excepted category? What is beyond the dominion of the majority?
    Why are you asking? I thought you didn't believe in majority rule.

    Anyway, it's obvious. Objective harm and benefit. You never need to rape a woman, steal someone's car, or murder someone in cold blood. Granted, for some crimes, circumstances warrant a lighter penalty. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you.

    I will say that freedom of expression must always remain, as it is the only means for the majority to express themselves. The entire argument against free speech is inconsistent anyway. Everyone believe in free speech so long as they agree with what is being said. Freedom of expression is always beneficial for whoever has it.

    As their employer it is our responsibility to define exactly what we want done, i.e. the terms. That is not how this government is setup, they are supposed to represent us.
    That's what we try to do. It's called voting. So what, are you suggesting that I don't think we should take responsibility?

    To get upset is about the only right. If it's profitable to give special deals to homosexual couples they will do it, no one has a right to force them.
    Again, we have every right to do so if the majority would support such legislation.

    When a wise king rules they call it monarchy, when a cruel king rules they call it tyranny.
    There's no such thing as a "wise king." When times are good, any king is wise. When times are bad, any king is a tyrant. Even the most democratic system can face some resentment. The trick is to provoke as little as possible.

    Mob rule is technically democracy, the taxes imposed on the American colonies were imposed by parliament not the king; the king was an easy target but it was republic that were being rebelled against.
    What point are you trying to address? The American Colonists had no direct representation in the British parliament, which led to the phrase "No taxation without representation," which you might have heard in 5th Grade history class.

    My point is the segment doesn't matter so long as that segment is not given power over the whole.
    Every country has a segment that is given power over the whole, even democracy. I think marijuana should be legalized, but I can't legally smoke marijuana because of laws that I don't even agree with. And that's the way it should be, since (I assume) the majority wanted marijuana outlawed when drug laws were passed. If American "democracy" works the way it does in theory, marijuana will eventually be legalized with growing societal pressure on the government.

    Democracy isn't about finding the "right" policies, because no policy is "right" except in relation to certain goals. The trick is to make the population with sovereignty consist of as many taxpayers as possible.

    Lol, money matters when money is being spent. When anyone, not just government; takes money or possessions without permission it's called "theft".
    And when have I advocated taking money from anyone? Is it "theft" to force companies to offer insurance benefits to gay couples if they offer the same thing to straight couples if the majority would support such legislation?

    When all contribute to government actions the exact same amount each shall be an equal partner in those actions.
    Yes, we call them "voters." You're trying to start an argument where there's nothing to argue over.

    It would be only corruption if money could pay for immorality. It is no better for immorality to be committed despite bribes.
    So you're saying that I support "immorality?"

  7. #1177
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Why are you asking?
    I think that it's every moral matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I thought you didn't believe in majority rule.
    Not as an institution. As a social concept I think it is sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Anyway, it's obvious. Objective harm and benefit. You never need to rape a woman, steal someone's car, or murder someone in cold blood. Granted, for some crimes, circumstances warrant a lighter penalty. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you.
    Are those things wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    That's what we try to do. It's called voting. So what, are you suggesting that I don't think we should take responsibility?
    We vote on who makes our decisions for us, not the decisions themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Again, we have every right to do so if the majority would support such legislation.
    Why does the majority have any effect on what is right and what is not? Does inalienable mean inalienable or subject to the will of the majority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    There's no such thing as a "wise king." When times are good, any king is wise. When times are bad, any king is a tyrant. Even the most democratic system can face some resentment. The trick is to provoke as little as possible.
    How can you say there is no such thing as a wise king? Are there no wise people or is there some law of nature that they are never dictators?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    What point are you trying to address? The American Colonists had no direct representation in the British parliament, which led to the phrase "No taxation without representation," which you might have heard in 5th Grade history class.
    My point is that in 5th grade history class they gave the impression that the form of government was the problem. It wasn't. Democracy and Republic are no guarantee of moral government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Every country has a segment that is given power over the whole, even democracy. I think marijuana should be legalized, but I can't legally smoke marijuana because of laws that I don't even agree with. And that's the way it should be, since (I assume) the majority wanted marijuana outlawed when drug laws were passed.
    In other words you sacrifice your beliefs for the collective beliefs. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    If American "democracy" works the way it does in theory, marijuana will eventually be legalized with growing societal pressure on the government.
    Assuming society get's it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Democracy isn't about finding the "right" policies, because no policy is "right" except in relation to certain goals. The trick is to make the population with sovereignty consist of as many taxpayers as possible.
    Taxation is immoral. Sovereignty is without rational basis. Government should be first and foremost a protector of rights, that is the 'right' policy. Whatever action it takes beyond that it takes merely as a conduit for the will of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    And when have I advocated taking money from anyone?
    That is the only alternative to what I outlined. It is a simple dichotomy, either a segment commands only it's own resources or it commands resources that are not it's own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Is it "theft" to force companies to offer insurance benefits
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    to gay couples if they offer the same thing to straight couples if the majority would support such legislation?
    I answered when I had enough information to answer, the use of force is immoral; the use of force to extort a value is theft. Who authorizes it and for what purpose is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Yes, we call them "voters."
    No, we do not all contribute exactly the same resources; nor would that mean an 'equal say' unless we all had the exact same goals for collective action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    You're trying to start an argument where there's nothing to argue over.

    So you're saying that I support "immorality?"
    Probably, the majority do. There is plenty to argue over but if you don't want to fine. I think the homosexual marriage thing leads directly into this issue.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  8. #1178
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    I think that it's every moral matter.
    First you're talking about rational, now "Morality."

    Not as an institution. As a social concept I think it is sound.
    Governments have consistently demonstrated throughout history that without regulation, they can't stay true to any social concept except sucking up power like a dry sponge in a shallow bowl of water. If someone is passing a law that could change the way you live, I think you ought to have some say in it. Executive power is more complex, but I'm in favor of some level of direct democratic vote as far as legislation is concerned.

    Are those things wrong?
    Yes.

    We vote on who makes our decisions for us, not the decisions themselves.
    You're citing the status quo. That's the way it is, that's not the way it needs to be, and the representatives don't always provide an accurate representation of the majority.

    Why does the majority have any effect on what is right and what is not?
    There is no right or wrong, as far as the government should be concerned. Th

    Does inalienable mean inalienable or subject to the will of the majority?
    I believe that "inalienable" includes your right to express yourself, your right to live and work in a place of your choice, your right to spend your personal money however you want, aside from taxes. We're discussing a democratic vote suggesting that companies should distribute their money in a manner not biased by sexual orientation, because they got that money thanks to that dirty rotten society trying to steal their money. I doubt you'd say that companies should be allowed to offer insurance benefits exclusively to white couples.

    How can you say there is no such thing as a wise king? Are there no wise people or is there some law of nature that they are never dictators?
    Strawman. I've never said that there are no dictators. I've said that there is no wise king who has all the answers because nobody has all the answers. The best way for the King to deal with most social issues is to realize that he doesn't have all the answers for them, and keep his hands off most of them.

    My point is that in 5th grade history class they gave the impression that the form of government was the problem. It wasn't. Democracy and Republic are no guarantee of moral government.
    Another strawman. I never said there is a way to create a moral government. There is no way to create a moral government. I am a libertarian because I believe that a government has no conscience. They wouldn't think they're immoral because they, for example, are forcing people into work camps for imperialistic goals. They'd think the people are immoral for protesting against it.

    In other words you sacrifice your beliefs for the collective beliefs. Why?
    I never said I'd stop believing what I believe. I said if I think companies should not have to recognize gay couples in their insurance benefits (which I do) but everyone else thinks they should, the government should legislate according to their views, not according to mine. It's arrogant to assume that you're just right about things, and that the government needs to legislate your way.

    Assuming society get's it right.
    If you'd bothered to read anything I said, I said that democracy isn't about getting the "right" policies passed. No policy is right except in relation to your political goals.

    Taxation is immoral. Sovereignty is without rational basis. Government should be first and foremost a protector of rights, that is the 'right' policy. Whatever action it takes beyond that it takes merely as a conduit for the will of the people.
    If you were half as "rational" as you claim to be, you wouldn't believe in any such thing as morality and you wouldn't be using such strawmen arguments.

    That is the only alternative to what I outlined. It is a simple dichotomy, either a segment commands only it's own resources or it commands resources that are not it's own.
    This isn't a matter of forcing majority views on people, it's a matter of consistency. Again, I don't see you saying that companies should be allowed to exclude minorities from their insurance benefits.

    Yes
    Nice job omitting the relevant part of my point. For someone who preaches "rationale," your posts are packed to the brim with one strawman after another. I don't know why I'm bothering trying to get an rational response from you. What I asked, if you had bothered to read, was if it's theft to force insurance companies to offer insurance benefits to gay couples if they companies offer insurance benefits to straight couples, assuming the majority would support such legislation in the first place. I doubt you'd say it's theft for companies to offer insurance benefits to white couples, but not black couples. If the majority decides that homosexuality is the same way, that's the basis on which the government should legislate.

    I answered when I had enough information to answer, the use of force is immoral; the use of force to extort a value is theft. Who authorizes it and for what purpose is irrelevant.
    Nobody is forcing anybody to change their lifestyle in any way. Just making companies be unbiased on account of sexual orientation, if the majority would support such a decision.

    No, we do not all contribute exactly the same resources; nor would that mean an 'equal say' unless we all had the exact same goals for collective action.
    We are all equally affected by the law in this country. At least those of us who pay taxes to help fund this process should absolutely have some say in what that law is.

    Probably, the majority do. There is plenty to argue over but if you don't want to fine. I think the homosexual marriage thing leads directly into this issue.


    You claim to be "rational," now you're preaching morality like it's not an arbitrary concept with no existence outside our minds. The reason we can even discuss this is because we happen to agree for the most part on what is moral and what isn't. But it's absurd to suggest that your "morality" alone is more valid than anyone else's.

  9. #1179
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    First you're talking about rational, now "Morality."
    Talking about society without considering morality is like discussing structural integrity without considering stress. Do you know a better way to approach any subject except rationally?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Governments have consistently demonstrated throughout history that without regulation, they can't stay true to any social concept except sucking up power like a dry sponge in a shallow bowl of water. If someone is passing a law that could change the way you live, I think you ought to have some say in it.
    I don't think someone should be able to pass a law which applies to innocent people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Yes.
    Are you saying that things that are wrong would still be wrong even if the majority wanted to do them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    You're citing the status quo. That's the way it is, that's not the way it needs to be, and the representatives don't always provide an accurate representation of the majority.
    I know...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    There is no right or wrong, as far as the government should be concerned.
    What do you think the law is supposed to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I believe that "inalienable" includes your right to express yourself, your right to live and work in a place of your choice, your right to spend your personal money however you want, aside from taxes.
    Why aside from taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    We're discussing a democratic vote suggesting that companies should distribute their money in a manner not biased by sexual orientation, because they got that money thanks to that dirty rotten society trying to steal their money.
    We're discussing the use of coercive force to extort behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I doubt you'd say that companies should be allowed to offer insurance benefits exclusively to white couples.
    I would.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Strawman. I've never said that there are no dictators. I've said that there is no wise king who has all the answers because nobody has all the answers. The best way for the King to deal with most social issues is to realize that he doesn't have all the answers for them, and keep his hands off most of them.
    Is English your second language? Since when is wise defined by having all the answers?

    I am going to have to ask you to support that I committed a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I never said there is a way to create a moral government.
    Right, because it was my point that republics and democracies are not necessarily moral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    There is no way to create a moral government.
    Then there should be no government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I am a libertarian because I believe that a government has no conscience. They wouldn't think they're immoral because they, for example, are forcing people into work camps for imperialistic goals. They'd think the people are immoral for protesting against it.
    I've been described as a libertarian, I thought it was because I believed in liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I never said I'd stop believing what I believe. I said if I think companies should not have to recognize gay couples in their insurance benefits (which I do) but everyone else thinks they should, the government should legislate according to their views, not according to mine.
    I'm not talking about what societies is doing I am talking about what you are doing. If the majority so legislated would you consider yourself obligated to support homosexual couples and why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    It's arrogant to assume that you're just right about things, and that the government needs to legislate your way.
    I have a right to decide for myself. Arrogant would be thinking I have a right to decide for others. Deciding for others is force, immoral, a violation of rights; and the necessary result of majority ruling the unanimity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    If you'd bothered to read anything I said, I said that democracy isn't about getting the "right" policies passed. No policy is right except in relation to your political goals.
    Then wouldn't the right policies be those which efficiently accomplish the goals of the people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    If you were half as "rational" as you claim to be, you wouldn't believe in any such thing as morality
    Are you claiming believing in morality is irrational? If so would you be willing to engage in a formal debate over the subject?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    and you wouldn't be using such strawmen arguments.
    I have not committed a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    This isn't a matter of forcing majority views on people, it's a matter of consistency.
    ... consistency in how a majority would force it's views on people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Again, I don't see you saying that companies should be allowed to exclude minorities from their insurance benefits.
    Companies should be allowed to exclude minorities from their insurance benefits. Companies should be allowed to do what ever they want so long as they violate rights. Morally they are identical to individuals.

    If you did not allow them you would be forcing the majorities will upon them, thus this is about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Nice job omitting the relevant part of my point. For someone who preaches "rationale," your posts are packed to the brim with one strawman after another.
    And you have some kind of mental defect which causes you to hallucinate if you think I've committed any strawmen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I don't know why I'm bothering trying to get an rational response from you.
    You asked a yes or no question, I didn't just give an appropriate answer; I gave it in it's clearest and most distilled form. What in the world are you complaining about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    What I asked, if you had bothered to read, was if it's theft to force insurance companies to offer insurance benefits to gay couples if they companies offer insurance benefits to straight couples, assuming the majority would support such legislation in the first place.
    Those conditions did not affect my answer as I indicated:
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom
    I answered when I had enough information to answer, the use of force is immoral; the use of force to extort a value is theft. Who authorizes it and for what purpose is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    I doubt you'd say it's theft for companies to offer insurance benefits to white couples, but not black couples.
    Of course it's not, refusing to deal with some one is not robbing them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    If the majority decides that homosexuality is the same way, that's the basis on which the government should legislate.
    By definition the law should never allow an immoral action or disallow a moral action.

    It is hoped that legislators and the system in general create a law close to morality, it was never thought that law and morality should be independent and certainly not that the legislature defined morality. If that notion has arisen it has not been there the whole time, our founding fathers were believers in a natural law, natural rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    Nobody is forcing anybody to change their lifestyle in any way. Just making companies be unbiased on account of sexual orientation, if the majority would support such a decision.
    If no one is being forced why is force required?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    We are all equally affected by the law in this country. At least those of us who pay taxes to help fund this process should absolutely have some say in what that law is.
    One of the biggest problems is the fact that people see no distinction between the law and collective endeavors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    You claim to be "rational," now you're preaching morality like it's not an arbitrary concept with no existence outside our minds.
    It isn't, and it's no more confined to our minds than any other social concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesbian View Post
    The reason we can even discuss this is because we happen to agree for the most part on what is moral and what isn't. But it's absurd to suggest that your "morality" alone is more valid than anyone else's.
    Why do we agree, what makes us decide what is moral or not? How can you be sure there is no right answer?
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #1180
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,532
    I've been described as a libertarian, I thought it was because I believed in liberty.
    you, described in one word???

    the only 'description' of you I have seen in this forum, before people throw up their arms in the air and stop arguing with you, is "intellectual fraud".

  11. #1181
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    you, described in one word???

    the only 'description' of you I have seen in this forum, before people throw up their arms in the air and stop arguing with you, is "intellectual fraud".
    Then one was foolish enough to post a definition of intellectual fraud. http://www.4forums.com/political/ope...tml#post449961

    Do you wish to advance a definition of intellectual fraud to see if you can prove I am one?
    Last edited by Freedom; 03-23-2012 at 06:58 PM.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •