|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Never thought of that. That would be just charming!
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
You've been shown that this is incorrect. The Greeks and Romans were at it for ages. You appear to express selective attention.
I only "damage my case" by the term because you all refuse to get the point. Every one, I am sure, gets your point. I do. But no body else here agrees with it. We understand your religious objection but do not hold the same objection. Why this is the case varies from poster to poster. I (and others) don't beleive in the the supernatural, others don't take the bible literally. Please don't confuse disagreeing with not understanding. All the best. Edited by Larni, : A lot. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They did not have an officially sanctioned Gay MARRIAGE, however much homosexuality and even permanent homosexual relationships they may have had.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 98 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
My iPad ran out of juice, about 3 seconds before I hit reply - grrr !
I'll sort out a proper reply when I'm home and can get off my mobi.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Faith writes: As for the "religious right" I don't know why objection to gay marriage is limited to us since it was universally unthinkable throughout history up until fairly recently. The fact objection to gay marriage is now limited to your extreme minority view would give most people pause to consider that perhaps they are being unreasonable. Since the religious right lives in unreasonable, it's impossible for them to even contemplate that they might be in error.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: But I'm sure you mean social benefits and one would certainly be the protection of women, which would have been more necessary in earlier times, though up until fairly recently. And stability and security for the raising of children. That one's rather a joke in our age of easy divorce but in a society where marriage is valued and enforced as a standard that could be said of it. But if you had ever actually read the Bible Faith you would know that Biblical Marriage was never for the protection of women or even stability and security for the raising of children. You are just making shit up again as I pointed out in Message 218. Since you obviously didn't read it that time I will gladly repeat it again.
quote: In the Bible women and children were chattel, possessions, personal property that was not just real estate.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Destroying the meaning of marriage is a drastic solution to cram down the throats of people who object to it if all you want is practical covenantal benefits that can be arranged many other ways. Except, as I've explained, since you don't even think the government should be involved in marriage, then any changes to that government definition cannot destroy what you hold the meaning of marriage to be. You've admitted it has no impact on you. This objection of yours is hollow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Except, as I've explained, since you don't even think the government should be involved in marriage, then any changes to that government definition cannot destroy what you hold the meaning of marriage to be. Oh fer... That's a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the source of the definition is. Since government is doing the defining it certainly CAN change its definition to destroy what's left of the definition of marriage that I hold the meaning of marriage to be.
You've admitted it has no impact on you. Actually I didn't say that. What I said was that objections to gay marriage are not about anybody's own personal experience of marriage. This idea that arguments against gay marriage derive from personal concern about its personal impact are bogus. I am not arguing from personal concern but for objective social standards, and against what I see as "mind rape" in the redefining of a social category to include what is really a sham, a charade, a fantasy that homosexuals want to live in order to feel normal. I see this as a recipe for a form of society-wide deceit, or in those who can see through the Emperor's New Clothes, a cynicism that accepts the devaluation of marriage as just another social deceit. Big fat pretense that sane people know is a pretense.
This objection of yours is hollow. Since it isn't my objection, it's your assessment that is hollow. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your examples are about how some marriages came about, not how the marriage itself was legally defined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Since government is doing the defining it certainly CAN change its definition to destroy what's left of the definition of marriage that I hold the meaning of marriage to be. Let me get this straight, you think that the government should not be involved in marriages. But you also let them define, for you, what marriage means to you? How could that possibly work?
Actually I didn't say that. What I said was that objections to gay marriage are not about anybody's own personal experience of marriage. This idea that arguments against gay marriage derive from personal concern about its personal impact are bogus. I guess I just cannot understand trying to stop something that I have no personal concern for.
I am not arguing from personal concern but for objective social standards, and against what I see as "mind rape" in the redefining of a social category to include what is really a sham, a charade, a fantasy that homosexuals want to live in order to feel normal. Wow, you're judging their motivation? How rude. Honestly Faith, regarding gay marriage, all the gays want is equal rights. They don't care about what you think about their marriages. They just want to be able to enter the contract with each other. I'm sure there are some that are seeking societal progress and acceptance and stuff, but that's really a side issue to the question of whether or not they can enter into a legal contract.
I see this as a recipe for a form of society-wide deceit, or in those who can see through the Emperor's New Clothes, a cynicism that accepts the devaluation of marriage as just another social deceit. This doesn't make sense at all. You're acting like if society re-defines marriage, then everyone must accept and embrace that definition. But then you're also arguing that society cannot change the real definition of marriage, because it means something different to you. That's contradictory. And think about it: How can a legal definition change your personal definition? You still perfectly capable of not considering those gay marriages to be real marriages. How could a re-definition make you think otherwise? And if it can't happen to you, then what makes you think that its going to happen to anyone else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Your examples are about how some marriages came about, not how the marriage itself was legally defined. More utter misrepresentation from Faith. They are examples from the "Laws and the Prophets" Faith. They also show that protecting women and children were not part of Biblical Marriage and that women and children were not even seen as anything more than property, stuff to buy and sell. They describe "Biblical Marriage". Thank God we have become far more moral than any of the characters in the Bible and have moved beyond the horror called "Biblical Morality". But Faith, Roy Moore is still just a bigot and idiot with no respect for the US or Constitution.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nothing I suggested about the social meaning of marriage implied that it was consciously designed that way, but women had to have the protection of a father or a husband in most societies throughout history because of the barbarian inclinations of men left over from the Fall, which cursed women with being ruled over by men. Which IS illustrated in your examples.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Nothing I suggested about the social meaning of marriage implied that it was consciously designed that way, but women had to have the protection of a father or a husband in most societies throughout history because of the barbarian inclinations of men left over from the Fall, which cursed women with being ruled over by men. Which IS illustrated in your examples. Got it Faith. Getting sold as property offers women protection. Getting raped offers women protection. Pick a prisoner offers women protection. Some guy making a deal with a father to buy you offers women protection. Do you have any idea how your posts are making you look as much a bigot as Roy Moore? Biblical Marriage like Biblical Morality was and is horrific and thank God most folk today are far more moral than anyone found in the Bible stories.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: You are generalizing a few anecdotes into law. Too funny Faith. I am not generalizing rather quoting what is in the "Law & the Prophets". Thank God we as a nation have moved beyond "Biblical Morality" and "Biblical Marriage".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024