DescentBB

Aggressor Prime wrote:

Alter-Fox wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:Oh, I forgot to ask: what parts of the bible do condemn homosexuality again?

Aggressor Prime wrote:The basis of my logic is the Tradition of the Church, not the Book.

Right, I forgot about the 'everyone else is doing it'.

Aggressor Prime wrote:The Church has developed a logic in order to understand all things.

Actually, my last sentence doesn't apply to you. But how did you ever concieve of the idea that the Church knows everything? I mean, God and people blessed by God, sure; but the Church? Heck, even the Church doesn't believe that, so now you're going against what the Church says!

I didn't say the Church knows everything. I said we have a logic in order to understand all things. We can understand all things because we are on the right path. Other religions always have and will always have a flaw in their argument.

That's your opinion. Mine is that just because something, for example Christianity, is right, it doesn't mean everything else is wrong.

No offense intended.

I agree, that is your opinion. And my opinion is that you are wrong and in addition to that I cannot force you to come to understand that, nor am I really passionate about doing so. What you believe is your business, but don't end up acting in such a way that shames marriage.

I agree. My opinion is that I really don't care if what I believe in is right or wrong, only that I have something to believe in.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

This post has been removed due to the removal of another post.

Since I don't care about the nature of my beliefs, I am trying to be neutral in this argument and present a third point of view on the arguement itself, not what is being argued about.

If you are wondering what just happened, I removed all my responses to this post because I just realized the E&C forum does not allow religious discussions due to the nature of the rules.

\"5 - Avoid religion and politics discussions.

These \"sensitive\" conversations most always seem to end in a flame war. Topics of this nature won't be tolerated on the DBB. We realize that we all are protected by the 1st Admendment of the US Constitution, but let's remember:

This is a PRIVATE BB not PUBLIC this entiltitles the DBB and it's staff to decide what is acceptable.\"

A moderator is free to delete all my posts here in order to clear up dead post space.

Only the intolerant and racist have turned this into a flame war. (All two of you). The rest of us were just arguing.

Kiran, I wish more people shared our opinion. Why is it that no one (figurative) sees that the whole problem stems from the government in the first place?

Blank Post

TIGERassault wrote:Oh, I forgot to ask: what parts of the bible do condemn homosexuality again?

Among other places, in Paul's letter to the Romans it's made pretty clear that a homosexual lifestyle isn't compatible with Christianity.

However, statements here have crossed the line into what I consider utterly un-Christian territory, like:
"...homosexuals in so much as they act out their homosexuality are uncivilized."

Consider this: Christ spoke passionately about right and wrong, but He always, always treated people with dignity, even those who it was not considered acceptable to touch or speak with (lepers, prostitutes, women, Samaritans, convicts, etc.). In my opinion, to make those kinds of demeaning personal statements about homosexuals is completely the opposite of the example Christ showed us.

Agressor Prime wrote:...you haven't studied enough if you disagree with me...

Apparently I "didn't study enough" for my degree (Summa Cum Laude), including at least six solid courses in theology and philosopy?

Testiculese wrote:Kiran, I wish more people shared our opinion. Why is it that no one (figurative) sees that the whole problem stems from the government in the first place?

special interest groups too.

Kilarin wrote:CHURCHES will then regain control of marriage.

The way you've set it out sounds a bit church-o-centric, but I think I'd generally agree. But I'd take this further: Let anyone regain control of marriage. Anyone should be an authority on marriage insofar as they can have people recognize them as one.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I just realized the E&C forum does not allow religious discussions due to the nature of the rules.

"5 - Avoid religion and politics discussions.

These "sensitive" conversations most always seem to end in a flame war. Topics of this nature won't be tolerated on the DBB.

The rules were written about 10 years ago.

We actually do allow religious and political discussion now. We just require that you keep your cool when you discuss such things. Treat the people on the other end of the conversation with respect, and you can discuss some pretty controversial stuff.

Aggressor Prime wrote:If you are wondering what just happened, I removed all my responses to this post because I just realized the E&C forum does not allow religious discussions due to the nature of the rules.

"5 - Avoid religion and politics discussions.

These "sensitive" conversations most always seem to end in a flame war. Topics of this nature won't be tolerated on the DBB. We realize that we all are protected by the 1st Admendment of the US Constitution, but let's remember:

This is a PRIVATE BB not PUBLIC this entiltitles the DBB and it's staff to decide what is acceptable."

A moderator is free to delete all my posts here in order to clear up dead post space.

You didn't need to delete all of that - that policy isn't the actual policy, i'm not sure why it's still written that way.
Almost the entirety of E&C is made up of political and religious discussion.

At least some of what you wrote was preserved in ppl's quotes.

Roid…where did you get the idea that I’m trying to defend s religious point of view? My argument is based on logic, that being that a lifestyle that is by default non reproductive doesn’t need marriage.

JFTR I’m not a Christian.

Testi…you don’t even deserve a response.

This discussion has really gone to the dogs….

I deleted my posts because their use to me had ended. I did not use my posts to argue anything, but mainly to test your reasonings so that I could map out your equations and find your weaknesses from which I can manipulate you (and man in general) in the future.

The first post was designed to get an initial reaction to my rejection to share information with you. I wanted to map your interest and interpretation.

The second post's purpose was to gather data on how you would react to a throw up of proposed truths, what parts you would value, what parts you would be turned off by, but mainly your commitment to suffering in order to understand the most ridiculous arguments on the surface that nevertheless still have the possibility of truth at its core.

The remaining posts were mainly positioned for my own ammusement. However, they did add value to my examination as they allowed me to do some extra probing on you guys.

The prime objective of this experiment is to test your use of choice, whether you use it or surrender it to your natures, not just in how you answered my statements, but in your answers themselves.

My personal beliefs on marriage, religion, life have not been presented in my arguments used in this endeavour.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I deleted my posts because their use to me had ended. I did not use my posts to argue anything, but mainly to test your reasonings so that I could map out your equations and find your weaknesses from which I can manipulate you (and man in general) in the future.

The first post was designed to get an initial reaction to my rejection to share information with you. I wanted to map your interest and interpretation.

The second post's purpose was to gather data on how you would react to a throw up of proposed truths, what parts you would value, what parts you would be turned off by, but mainly your commitment to suffering in order to understand the most ridiculous arguments on the surface that nevertheless still have the possibility of truth at its core.

The remaining posts were mainly positioned for my own ammusement. However, they did add value to my examination as they allowed me to do some extra probing on you guys.

The prime objective of this experiment is to test your use of choice, whether you use it or surrender it to your natures, not just in how you answered my statements, but in your answers themselves.

My personal beliefs on marriage, religion, life have not been presented in my arguments used in this endeavour.

So you purposfully write things to get an emotional response to your post, then delete your posts and then admit you didn't even share your own feelings on it?

Coward is all I have to say.

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:I deleted my posts because their use to me had ended. I did not use my posts to argue anything, but mainly to test your reasonings so that I could map out your equations and find your weaknesses from which I can manipulate you (and man in general) in the future.

The first post was designed to get an initial reaction to my rejection to share information with you. I wanted to map your interest and interpretation.

The second post's purpose was to gather data on how you would react to a throw up of proposed truths, what parts you would value, what parts you would be turned off by, but mainly your commitment to suffering in order to understand the most ridiculous arguments on the surface that nevertheless still have the possibility of truth at its core.

The remaining posts were mainly positioned for my own ammusement. However, they did add value to my examination as they allowed me to do some extra probing on you guys.

The prime objective of this experiment is to test your use of choice, whether you use it or surrender it to your natures, not just in how you answered my statements, but in your answers themselves.

My personal beliefs on marriage, religion, life have not been presented in my arguments used in this endeavour.

So you purposfully write things to get an emotional response to your post, then delete your posts and then admit you didn't even share your own feelings on it?

Coward is all I have to say.

No. I wanted to measure your ability of choice along with your basic reasoning skills. I didn't expect you to use your advance reasoning skills because my argument should not have been something that threatened your beliefs. Any emotional reaction was measured purely in an objective manner.

So it was all a sham... clever, but not clever enough. Somewhat immoral. I hate to say it, but you were leaving hints everywhere.

The whole time I've been online today, you've been browsing the forum. I assumed you were just obsessive, though it did seem a bit odd, and your arguments had an air of fakeness to them.

BTW - What did you think of my reaction? I want to see how far away you are from the truth. I however, never once lied outright. With knowledge of English comes the ability to tell the truth using words that would imply something completely different. I know English.

Well, at least you were honest in the end. That is at least somewhat honourable.

Cowardly? I think research on animals is infinitely worse.

Alter-Fox wrote:So it was all a sham... clever, but somewhat immoral.

BTW - What did you think of my reaction? I want to see how far away you are from the truth.

It also explains why the whole time I've been online today, you've been browsing the forum. I assumed you were just obsessive, though it did seem a bit odd, and your arguments had an air of fakeness to them.

Well, at least you were honest in the end. That is at least somewhat honourable.

And Merlin... keep in mind I have no real idea, but maybe he's doing a psychology project? The advancement of anyone's knowledge often has to be done in an immoral and sometimes seemingly cowardly way. Research for drugs is still done on animals, and I think that is much more immoral and cowardly than just a simple psychology test.

No, this was not done for any external project. I perform multiple of these projects in forums and real life in order to better understand the nature of man for a lifelong personal project of my own.

You also agreed with me way too much. No one agrees that much when they're arguing. (I play Devil's Advocate over the phone... I know all about arguing.)

If anyone had been looking for clues, they would have figured you out.

BTW - what I meant was a personal project to understand psychology. I'm interested in that too, though obviously not to your extent.

I enjoyed it. I like the challenge in arguing.

Aggressor Prime wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:I deleted my posts because their use to me had ended. I did not use my posts to argue anything, but mainly to test your reasonings so that I could map out your equations and find your weaknesses from which I can manipulate you (and man in general) in the future.

The first post was designed to get an initial reaction to my rejection to share information with you. I wanted to map your interest and interpretation.

The second post's purpose was to gather data on how you would react to a throw up of proposed truths, what parts you would value, what parts you would be turned off by, but mainly your commitment to suffering in order to understand the most ridiculous arguments on the surface that nevertheless still have the possibility of truth at its core.

The remaining posts were mainly positioned for my own ammusement. However, they did add value to my examination as they allowed me to do some extra probing on you guys.

The prime objective of this experiment is to test your use of choice, whether you use it or surrender it to your natures, not just in how you answered my statements, but in your answers themselves.

My personal beliefs on marriage, religion, life have not been presented in my arguments used in this endeavour.

So you purposfully write things to get an emotional response to your post, then delete your posts and then admit you didn't even share your own feelings on it?

Coward is all I have to say.

No. I wanted to measure your ability of choice along with your basic reasoning skills. I didn't expect you to use your advance reasoning skills because my argument should not have been something that threatened your beliefs. Any emotional reaction was measured purely in an objective manner.

You see Aggressor, it is not you who's doing the experimenting. I'm truly god, I created man 75 years ago. All history, all fossils, all records; all were created by me to create the illusion that things have actually happened. I thought it would be fun to see how many beings I could brainwash with nonsensical information so I spent a few seconds making a few thousand religions using stories that just came to the top of my head. I've gotten people to kill others to make them think they get virgins, I've also gotten people to claim they can understand anti-gravity and how to make it with their 'religious' thought, just that they choose not to.

Yes, I'm god, and I'm sadistic. BWHAhahaha! I LAUGH. In fact, I'll tell you how to make anti gravity right now. It's actually quite simple. If you stand straight up, holding your hands over your head for 5 years without bringing them down, everything you touch will start to float. Also, spontaneous combustion happens when you pick your nose 98 times in a single hour. I think nose picking is gross, so I made it that way. The entire night sky is fake, even the sun is fake. I wrapped the earth in black bubble wrap, and when I shine my flashlight through it, it turns blue.

Everyone on earth is female, you're all gay. Ever seen those male pregnancies? Those are 100% real. Twinkies and Mcdonalds french fries have been blessed by me, I saw it fit that they live forever, but you bastards keep eating them. Oh, and may I mention, there is hell; heaven is just a myth that I made up to further my brainwashing - mainly because I'm too lazy to use my mind control powers right now. Wanna know why? I'm a chicken. You bastards keep eating chicken, and I'm tired of it, so you're all just going to hell. Hell looks exactly like earth, but everyone is an apartment manager with incompetent clients who keep shoving random objects down their disposals and breaking the disposals.

Wings wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:I deleted my posts because their use to me had ended. I did not use my posts to argue anything, but mainly to test your reasonings so that I could map out your equations and find your weaknesses from which I can manipulate you (and man in general) in the future.

The first post was designed to get an initial reaction to my rejection to share information with you. I wanted to map your interest and interpretation.

The second post's purpose was to gather data on how you would react to a throw up of proposed truths, what parts you would value, what parts you would be turned off by, but mainly your commitment to suffering in order to understand the most ridiculous arguments on the surface that nevertheless still have the possibility of truth at its core.

The remaining posts were mainly positioned for my own ammusement. However, they did add value to my examination as they allowed me to do some extra probing on you guys.

The prime objective of this experiment is to test your use of choice, whether you use it or surrender it to your natures, not just in how you answered my statements, but in your answers themselves.

My personal beliefs on marriage, religion, life have not been presented in my arguments used in this endeavour.

So you purposfully write things to get an emotional response to your post, then delete your posts and then admit you didn't even share your own feelings on it?

Coward is all I have to say.

No. I wanted to measure your ability of choice along with your basic reasoning skills. I didn't expect you to use your advance reasoning skills because my argument should not have been something that threatened your beliefs. Any emotional reaction was measured purely in an objective manner.

You see Aggressor, it is not you who's doing the experimenting. I'm truly god, I created man 75 years ago. All history, all fossils, all records; all were created by me to create the illusion that things have actually happened. I thought it would be fun to see how many beings I could brainwash with nonsensical information so I spent a few seconds making a few thousand religions using stories that just came to the top of my head. I've gotten people to kill others to make them think they get virgins, I've also gotten people to claim they can understand anti-gravity and how to make it with their 'religious' thought, just that they choose not to.

Yes, I'm god, and I'm sadistic. BWHAhahaha! I LAUGH. In fact, I'll tell you how to make anti gravity right now. It's actually quite simple. If you stand straight up, holding your hands over your head for 5 years without bringing them down, everything you touch will start to float. Also, spontaneous combustion happens when you pick your nose 98 times in a single hour. I think nose picking is gross, so I made it that way. The entire night sky is fake, even the sun is fake. I wrapped the earth in black bubble wrap, and when I shine my flashlight through it, it turns blue.

Everyone on earth is female, you're all gay. Ever seen those male pregnancies? Those are 100% real. Twinkies and Mcdonalds french fries have been blessed by me, I saw it fit that they live forever, but you bastards keep eating them. Oh, and may I mention, there is hell; heaven is just a myth that I made up to further my brainwashing - mainly because I'm too lazy to use my mind control powers right now. Wanna know why? I'm a chicken. You bastards keep eating chicken, and I'm tired of it, so you're all just going to hell. Hell looks exactly like earth, but everyone is an apartment manager with incompetent clients who keep shoving random objects down their disposals and breaking the disposals.

LOL!!!

I was laughing the whole time I was reading your post.

You might be able to make that into an official religion, I mean, look at Pastafarianism or IPU's. I'd personally love to see something this inane. The others would look pathetic by comparison!!!

Wings wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:I deleted my posts because their use to me had ended. I did not use my posts to argue anything, but mainly to test your reasonings so that I could map out your equations and find your weaknesses from which I can manipulate you (and man in general) in the future.

The first post was designed to get an initial reaction to my rejection to share information with you. I wanted to map your interest and interpretation.

The second post's purpose was to gather data on how you would react to a throw up of proposed truths, what parts you would value, what parts you would be turned off by, but mainly your commitment to suffering in order to understand the most ridiculous arguments on the surface that nevertheless still have the possibility of truth at its core.

The remaining posts were mainly positioned for my own ammusement. However, they did add value to my examination as they allowed me to do some extra probing on you guys.

The prime objective of this experiment is to test your use of choice, whether you use it or surrender it to your natures, not just in how you answered my statements, but in your answers themselves.

My personal beliefs on marriage, religion, life have not been presented in my arguments used in this endeavour.

So you purposfully write things to get an emotional response to your post, then delete your posts and then admit you didn't even share your own feelings on it?

Coward is all I have to say.

No. I wanted to measure your ability of choice along with your basic reasoning skills. I didn't expect you to use your advance reasoning skills because my argument should not have been something that threatened your beliefs. Any emotional reaction was measured purely in an objective manner.

You see Aggressor, it is not you who's doing the experimenting. I'm truly god, I created man 75 years ago. All history, all fossils, all records; all were created by me to create the illusion that things have actually happened. I thought it would be fun to see how many beings I could brainwash with nonsensical information so I spent a few seconds making a few thousand religions using stories that just came to the top of my head. I've gotten people to kill others to make them think they get virgins, I've also gotten people to claim they can understand anti-gravity and how to make it with their 'religious' thought, just that they choose not to.

Yes, I'm god, and I'm sadistic. BWHAhahaha! I LAUGH. In fact, I'll tell you how to make anti gravity right now. It's actually quite simple. If you stand straight up, holding your hands over your head for 5 years without bringing them down, everything you touch will start to float. Also, spontaneous combustion happens when you pick your nose 98 times in a single hour. I think nose picking is gross, so I made it that way. The entire night sky is fake, even the sun is fake. I wrapped the earth in black bubble wrap, and when I shine my flashlight through it, it turns blue.

Everyone on earth is female, you're all gay. Ever seen those male pregnancies? Those are 100% real. Twinkies and Mcdonalds french fries have been blessed by me, I saw it fit that they live forever, but you bastards keep eating them. Oh, and may I mention, there is hell; heaven is just a myth that I made up to further my brainwashing - mainly because I'm too lazy to use my mind control powers right now. Wanna know why? I'm a chicken. You bastards keep eating chicken, and I'm tired of it, so you're all just going to hell. Hell looks exactly like earth, but everyone is an apartment manager with incompetent clients who keep shoving random objects down their disposals and breaking the disposals.

Thank you for that. That gave me a very enjoyable laugh.

Alter-Fox wrote:You also agreed with me way too much. No one agrees that much when they're arguing. (I play Devil's Advocate over the phone... I know all about arguing.)

If anyone had been looking for clues, they would have figured you out.

BTW - what I meant was a personal project to understand psychology. I'm interested in that too, though obviously not to your extent.

I enjoyed it. I like the challenge in arguing.

I am not that interested in psychology, although that doesn't mean it doesn't play a small part in my lifelong project. Concerning education, the major goal of these examinations is to examine human use of choice. Again, even this is not the end of the project. My project has a higher purpose. Also, I don't understand why you liked the "challenge" in arguing (implying this argument was challenging for you). I hope this wasn't a challenge as the techniques I used here I could perform in grade school.

Even if everyone else is gay, I'm not... I have no interest whatsoever in a relationship beyond simple friendship, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

BTW Agressor, you haven't stopped, have you. You're still hanging around the forum.

No Foil, you obviously didn't study enough if you still believe in some mystical being. Get a grip people, you will not win the end.

My advice?

Get into an argument you might win...because you will not win this one. You've stalled it for eight years because we've had a buffoon for a president...but not much longer. Thank 'god'.

Zuruck wrote:No Foil, you obviously didn't study enough if you still believe in some mystical being. Get a grip people, you will not win the end.

My advice?

Get into an argument you might win...because you will not win this one. You've stalled it for eight years because we've had a buffoon for a president...but not much longer. Thank 'god'.

If you only get into augments you can win, your learning will be impaired.

What makes you think our next president will make homosexual marriage legal?

@Alter-Fox:
I never stop.

Allow me to clarify without wasting more posts. I will stop posting in this section, but I will not stop using this forum or life itself for my personal project. This is not to say my posts will become as cruel a model as this. My entire life has been modeled to test humanity and therefore I must continually test you by my nature. This does not mean your posts will suffer their value like this one apparently did.

Aggressor, I have one word for you.

Stop.

Prime, I don't really care what your 'personal project' is, all I know is that you're trolling! Stop it!

Spidey wrote:Roid…where did you get the idea that I’m trying to defend s religious point of view? My argument is based on logic, that being that a lifestyle that is by default non reproductive doesn’t need marriage.

JFTR I’m not a Christian.

Testi…you don’t even deserve a response.

This discussion has really gone to the dogs….

oh ok, i didn't realise that. Because you seem to be talking from a Socially Conservative point of view - i assumed you were Christian. In America most Social Conservatives opinions are effectively fed (and justified) by Christianity.

This thread for instance was created by a vocal firmly Christian Social Conservative, who's views are fed and justified by the religion.

I still don't understand how you don't see this however (continues...) :

Spidey wrote:

Spidey wrote:“I've never tried caviar, but i hear it's an aquired taste - therefore, perhaps MOST people do not like caviar.
We don't NEED to eat caviar.
Therefore we should make caviar illegal.”

That was the worst analogy I have ever heard.

Spidey wrote:Well last night I was watching The News Hour and they had a story about Religion in America. They said that 78% of people in America say they are Christian…so I say forget the debate and put it on the ballad, and let democracy do its thing.

Why not put the caviar issue on the ballet too?
The point of the analogy is that there is no sane reason for it to be banned. If you don't eat caviar - why would you want to ban it for others - why would you care? Why not just let them eat caviar? At a dinner party you can say "i like oysters", someone else will say "i like caviar" and no-one will be shocked, it will just be another thing to eat - and we all gotta eat.

Likewise - we all love. Gays want to get married. Rather than demanding they justify "why" - why not just let them have what they want, like they want? What is the purpose of stopping them?

This discussion has really gone to the dogs….

It's certainly gone somewhere very off-topic...

roid wrote:

Spidey wrote:...put it on the ballad...

...on the ballet

ballAD,ballET, ballOT

roid wrote:...why not just let them have what they want, like they want? What is the purpose of stopping them?

Ah, finally back to the topic.

For a Christian church/denomination, it's reasonable, because it's a matter of sticking to their belief system. The Christian faith has never supported that lifestyle, and to say otherwise would be to ignore some facet of their fundamental beliefs.

However, for a government like the United States', the intent of this proposed amendment seems to be to prevent homosexual couples from receiving legal benefits. That's completely un-reasonable in my book, because its purpose is fundamentally to discriminate.

roid wrote:If you don't eat caviar - why would you want to ban it for others - why would you care? Why not just let them eat caviar?

This gay love discussion falls under the 'why do people push their religion on other people' - because they believe those people will go to hell if they do/don't do X. Which is why your caviar example isn't suitable: those people don't believe caviar is the spawn of Satan or something.

But I don't quite see the point of just banning gay marriages, but not gay love outright. I would've thought it would be more logical to either treat gay love as regular love, or make gay love a jail/death sentence. I don't know why people would go for a middle-of-the-road option. Unless, of course, they're just jumping the bandwagon.

Roid

The analogy doesn’t work for me because of 2 reasons.

1. It seems to trivialize the issue. (Equating caviar to social values doesn’t work)

2. It’s backwards, in my point something that is already illegal becomes legal, and in your analogy something legal becomes illegal. (Analogies need to be parallel not opposite)

Try a little experiment…try changing the word caviar to lets say……poop

Heh, if you want to put banning caviar on the ballot, go right ahead…I’m not scared.

I’m all for giving people every right to be happy, but on the other hand I need to see a net gain from it. Granting a right to a minority for the sake of happiness while it makes the larger group unhappy has no merit. When you go about changing laws for the sake of making people happy…you better be making more people happy then the opposite, or you get a net loss of happiness. I would think raising the total happiness would be the goal of any law dealing with happiness. (did I say happiness enuf to make my point?)

A better argument for gay marriage would be that it would provide a better environment for “everyone” to live in or something like that. Making something legal because it makes a small number of people “happy” makes no sense. That’s a very trivial reason to change a law.

Maybe making Christians unhappy would suit you and some others on this board just fine, because I perceive a very strong anti-Christian sentiment among certain people. The very same kind of bigotry they are always accusing others of.

Anyway I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Foil…thanks for that correction…but someone else already beat you to it.

Why is it that some people (mostly religious people) are afraid of change/evolution?

I'd love to be alive in 500 years if religion was almost gone and the non-religious people would be putting laws on them saying they can't do this, or can't do that.

Would be interesting to see what the religious folks would do.

The world evolves as do humans and if we don't evolve with it, we are doomed to have 1/2 the population hate the other half etc.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Why is it that some people (mostly religious people) are afraid of change/evolution?

I'd love to be alive in 500 years if religion was almost gone and the non-religious people would be putting laws on them saying they can't do this, or can't do that

Err kinda sounds like 500 years ago...

EDIT:Actually I was thinking of the time in which Christians were being thrown to the lions...but I realize that was a bit farther back.

Spidey wrote:Roid

The analogy doesn’t work for me because of 2 reasons.

1. It seems to trivialize the issue. (Equating caviar to social values doesn’t work)

2. It’s backwards, in my point something that is already illegal becomes legal, and in your analogy something legal becomes illegal. (Analogies need to be parallel not opposite)

It's also a very often used literary device.

Spidey wrote:Making something legal because it makes a small number of people “happy” makes no sense. That’s a very trivial reason to change a law.

If that was a basis of all laws:
No assistance would be given to handicapped people.
No assistance or benefits would be given to poor or unemployed people.
Being a Christian would be mandatory in the USA. (hey, so that's where those one-religion-only countries get it from)
Being a geek is against the law.

Yeah, I could go on for some time explaining why what you just said is utter pugwash.

Spidey wrote:because I perceive a very strong anti-Christian sentiment among certain people. The very same kind of bigotry they are always accusing others of.

Wait, what? You're saying that people who think some kinds of people should be given as much rights as other kinds of people is bigotry? Ugh!

Huh?

Assistance isn’t given to handicapped people to make them happy. Unemployed people don’t get benefits to make them happy.

Who said anything about “the basis of all law”? That was a really dumb supposition.

“Wait, what? You're saying that people who think some kinds of people should be given as much rights as other kinds of people is bigotry? Ugh!”

No I didn’t say that…holy cow!

/me looks at ceiling and sighs

Spidey wrote:Assistance isn’t given to handicapped people to make them happy. Unemployed people don’t get benefits to make them happy.

If they're not for happyness, then why are those laws in place? Its not like they were made to punish everyone else for these people's unfortunate positions.

Spidey wrote:Who said anything about “the basis of all law”? That was a really dumb supposition.

Right, the basis of all laws 'dealing with happiness'. Which is pretty much all civil laws.

Spidey wrote:No I didn’t say that…holy cow!

Well that's what it looks like.

Tiger….Your from Ireland correct?

Civil laws are about “Rights” not Happiness.

Spidey wrote:Civil laws are about “Rights” not Happiness.

... which leads to greater happiness of the people who benefit from the Civil laws...

Yes, Civil laws are often about "Rights", but the desired results is always for happiness for someone.