Formally anythingforums.com, iceteks.com, uovalor.com and uogateway.com Forums.
https://www.anyf.ca/
Hey, we banned that wor... ah forget it, have a cupcake!Red Squirrel wrote: Cup cakes are sinful.... well for people on a diet.
Your lucky I'm Church of England!Red Squirrel wrote: Cup cakes are sinful.... well for people on a diet.
You're starting to remind me of Kerry and his flip-flops. I started out by posting an illustration of why homosexuality is wrong by using an ettiquette illustration. Something can be wrong simply because it is against the rules (with my perspective of the Bible as my guide for life). You then challenged that by saying we have been talking about legalities, not wrongness, and I conceded that point. I then compose a post regarding legality, and I refered to marriage because that is what the homosexual community itself is trying to legalize. Are you saying this thread has been about the legality of simply being gay? When we talk about legality and homosexuality in the same sentence , the common-sense assumption is that gay marriage is the focus.shenbaw wrote:First of all Bookworm, I appreciate your thoughtful effort.Bookworm wrote: Well, I've been thinking about why gay marriage should not be legal, and I understand you want me to explain it without using God or the Bible. Here goes. Gay marriage should not be legal because it is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Now I suppose you want me to explain marriage without using God or the Bible. I say, you people are never satisfied. Well, I'm not even going to try that one. For the majority of Americans, marriage is not just a civil union but it is also a religious rite. If marriage was just a social institution that has slowly evolved over time, then the terms and definition of marriage could change as well. But if marriage is an institution that was established by God, then God has the authority to establish the terms and definition. Here is a portion of the concluding paragraph of a magazine article I just finished reading. "God has a perspective on marriage that He clearly communicates in the Bible. Cultures may change, opinions may vary, but individuals who honestly research what God's Word teaches regarding marriage will come away with a clear understanding of God's ways. The real issue in today's culture does not center in understanding what God teaches about marriage. It centers in man's willingness to obey God's teachings." I understand that some people may not agree with my stand on the authority of the Bible. That's fine. But the fact that you disagree with me doesn't automatically mean that I am wrong. And asking me to explain my perspective on an issue without using God or the Bible is like me asking you to explain why stealing is wrong without using the words "infringe" and "individual" and "rights." From your perspective, you would need to use those words, and from my perspective, I would use the Bible.
Second, me using the words "infringe" and "individual" and "rights" is nothing like you using the words "God" or "the Bible" or "Sin." The reason I say this is because of the meanings behind those words. When I say "It infringes upon an individual's right to..." I am giving direct evidence of a "wrong" in that it causes harm or damage to another person or group of people by violating what we as a society have determined to be a basic set of undeniable human rights (i.e. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.). When you say "In the Bible God says it's a Sin to..." you are giving evidence of absolutely nothing except what it says in that book. It would be like me saying "Murder is wrong because it says it's illegal in our Minnesota Statutes and Codes." That fact has nothing to do with WHY it's wrong, it simply points out the fact THAT it's illegal. When you say, "Gay marriage is wrong because it says it's wrong in the Bible," you say nothing in respect to WHY it's wrong, you're simply pointing out THAT according to this book it's incorrect. One approach actually addresses the question of WHY, the other does not.
Finally, I think that article you read got you a little off topic of what exactly it is that we are talking about here.Red wrote: Figured if they're legalizing pot and gays might as well keep this trend going!Red wrote: Obviously smoking pot and being gay is worse, common. Obviously if you're hacking into the pentagon to launch missles it's a different storyRed wrote: Gaymess affects familes, so does pot.Red wrote: And unless your entire family is gay, I'm sure if you turned gay or/and got addicted to drugs it would make a big impact on your family.I think "marriage" was just mentioned for the first time in this thread just now when you posted that argument to make it illegal. We aren't talking about gay marriage here, Bookworm. We're just talking about being gay and how it's much much worse than hacking into someone's personal computer. So again, as much as I do appreciate your honest and genuine attempt to justify outlawing gay marriage, perhaps you'd like to try again and address the real issue and not the one you happened to just finish reading an article about.Red wrote: So legal or not hacking should not be something that affects anyone as much as drugs, gays, murder etc. Gays also tend to be sexual predators, though it's not always the case so I can't stereotype. Either way they're gross and I keep my distance.
People in the church of England have no muscles in their arms..MrSelf wrote:Your lucky I'm Church of England!Red Squirrel wrote: Cup cakes are sinful.... well for people on a diet.
To be fair, as far as THAT OTHER DOCUMENT; the declaration of independence words itself ever so precautiously as to make it fit with everyone. their instead of the creator, as to show if you believe nature created you or god created you, the rights are the same. There was a big debate at the time of "their" versus "the", and "their" won out. There was also talk to add into the preamble references to a supreme creator, and it was not passed there either. Nor was in when it was readdress by the Protestant movement of the 1860's that eventually led to our money and motto being changed to "In god we trust".Bookworm wrote: ...snip...
It's also interesting how the early Greek philosophers viewed the issue of rights and natural law. I listened to a 12-tape series of lectures on the subject, and it really has been debated for ages.MrSelf wrote:To be fair, as far as THAT OTHER DOCUMENT; the declaration of independence words itself ever so precautiously as to make it fit with everyone. their instead of the creator, as to show if you believe nature created you or god created you, the rights are the same. There was a big debate at the time of "their" versus "the", and "their" won out. There was also talk to add into the preamble references to a supreme creator, and it was not passed there either. Nor was in when it was readdress by the Protestant movement of the 1860's that eventually led to our money and motto being changed to "In god we trust".Bookworm wrote: ...snip...
And your starting to remind me of the Bush campaign with their baseless allegations.Bookworm wrote: You're starting to remind me of Kerry and his flip-flops.
Obviously this needs a little further explanation. We are talking about both "wrongness" and "legalities" in the sense that just because something is against the rules, doesn't make that act "wrong." Just because the rules of soccer say that touching the ball with your hand is "illegal" doesn't make the act of touching a ball with your hand "wrong." Just because the rules of ettiquette say that putting your elbows on the table is wrong in certain instances, doesn't make the act of putting your elbows on a table "wrong." I feel this same line of thought can be applied to homosexuality. Just because certain books or certain people say that being gay is immoral, doesn't make the act of being gay "wrong." There must be something inherant in the act or deed that makes it "wrong."Bookworm wrote: I started out by posting an illustration of why homosexuality is wrong by using an ettiquette illustration. Something can be wrong simply because it is against the rules (with my perspective of the Bible as my guide for life). You then challenged that by saying we have been talking about legalities, not wrongness, and I conceded that point.
That's exactly what I'm saying.Bookworm wrote: I then compose a post regarding legality, and I refered to marriage because that is what the homosexual community itself is trying to legalize. Are you saying this thread has been about the legality of simply being gay?
Common-sense? Why is it that every time you guys don't agree with reason or become frustrated, you pipe in with this "common-sense" crap? You don't want to stick to the topic at hand? Fine. But don't blame common-sense, it had nothing to do with it. Come on, look at what's been said. "Marriage" was mentioned for the first time in your post. Nowhere else. If you want to debate gay marriage go right ahead, I'm just letting you know that's not what we were talking about. It should come as no surprise to you that throughout most of the this country the act of "simply being gay," as you put it, was in fact illegal. Some places untill very recently.Bookworm wrote: When we talk about legality and homosexuality in the same sentence , the common-sense assumption is that gay marriage is the focus.
That's an interesting question, considering you just gave me the answer. If you believe someone gave us those rights, then you've already produced the answer to the question of WHO? The creator of course. However, if you believe that they are simply rights that all human being deserve and possess because we are thoughtful, rational, empathetic creatures, it would be hard to say if someone gave us those rights or if they are simply something we naturally possess as a result of being born human.Bookworm wrote: Regarding your statement about human rights: Have we as a society granted people human rights, or have we, as you say yourself, "determined" what already exist as human rights? Who gave us these rights?
Unfortunately Bookworm, your creator may not be my creator. And my creator may not be the next person's creator. So to say that we should look to our creator to fully understand our rights is a bit like saying we should look to our creator to fully understand the details on how to file our income taxes. Though it may be right for you and your family, it probably isn't right for me or the next person, and it most likely has very little relevance to what is actually required of us or afforded to us in society.Bookworm wrote: I believe a document OTHER THAN THE BIBLE has stated that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights. Therefore, to fully understand our rights, we should look to their source (God) rather than to society.
Where exactly in the Bible does God help us fully understand a person's right to freedom of speech? Is it the part where it says "Thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain?"Bookworm wrote: to fully understand our rights, we should look to their source (God)
Don't you think that's a dangerous game to play? Relying on debate to be your check on extremity? All it takes to overcome that is isolation from counter-arguement, which we have seen throughout history that government has an unbalanced ability to control. If government controls your education, then if controls your ability to debate. A naive people is a happy people I guess though....Bookworm wrote: (some of which won't go very far, but that's okay, because the process of debate and understanding also keeps the most extreme laws from the other end of the spectrum from passing as well).
Equally valid is one thing, equally justified is a completely different ball game. Validity is determined within one's own mind. Justifiability, or defendability, is something that must be exhibited in reality so that others can see it's truth.Bookworm wrote: So . . . my common-sense assumption is that we disagree about this. I think your concept of what makes something wrong is too narrow. Something being inherent in the deed is just one factor in why something is wrong. For many, many other people, Biblical principles are an equally valid factor.
Even if the only reason you believe something to be immoral is because it says so in a book? At one time there were lots of books, pamphlets, and fliers written about how immoral it would be to fully desegregate our schools and public facilities. How comfortable are you with legalizing that?Bookworm wrote: If you don't want to be one of those people, fine. But I personally am going to stand up for those Biblical principles in those areas where I am able. I understand the dangers of trying to legislate morality, but I am also going to be uncomfortable with the idea of legalizing immorality.
You should be very proud to be an American Bookworm. Cause on this last November 2nd, 2004, it became very apparent to me and the rest of the world that America is primarily composed of people just like you.Bookworm wrote: Our Constitutional system, in my mind, does tend to favor your position over mine, and I am, of course, proud to be an American. But our Constitutional system also gives me the right to vote for those candidates who reflect my views and who will introduce laws to support those views (some of which won't go very far, but that's okay, because the process of debate and understanding also keeps the most extreme laws from the other end of the spectrum from passing as well).
I suppose you could consider it dangerous, but what is the alternative? No debate at all? The government already runs our public education system, and there is the tendency to separate God from education for fear of "establishing" a religion, so I would say that my position has more to fear from the danger of this game than what yours does.MrSelf wrote:Don't you think that's a dangerous game to play? Relying on debate to be your check on extremity? All it takes to overcome that is isolation from counter-arguement, which we have seen throughout history that government has an unbalanced ability to control. If government controls your education, then if controls your ability to debate. A naive people is a happy people I guess though....Bookworm wrote: (some of which won't go very far, but that's okay, because the process of debate and understanding also keeps the most extreme laws from the other end of the spectrum from passing as well).
Are you guys honestly debating over who's position should be the most scared or fearful of the process of formal debate?Bookworm wrote:I suppose you could consider it dangerous, but what is the alternative? No debate at all? The government already runs our public education system, and there is the tendency to separate God from education for fear of "establishing" a religion, so I would say that my position has more to fear from the danger of this game than what yours does.MrSelf wrote:Don't you think that's a dangerous game to play? Relying on debate to be your check on extremity? All it takes to overcome that is isolation from counter-arguement, which we have seen throughout history that government has an unbalanced ability to control. If government controls your education, then if controls your ability to debate. A naive people is a happy people I guess though....Bookworm wrote: (some of which won't go very far, but that's okay, because the process of debate and understanding also keeps the most extreme laws from the other end of the spectrum from passing as well).
We are a fearful people. I'm not, but he bookworm may be. I was simply point out that debate as a basis for keeping society in line, while being useful, is not all inclusive and fool-proof. It is very useful if presented properly, but dangerous if not, so the issue become securing the environment of fair and just debate. Without safeguards to secure this, debate becomes flawed quickly, and is easy to use as a tool for personal desires.shenbaw wrote:Are you guys honestly debating over who's position should be the most scared or fearful of the process of formal debate?Bookworm wrote:I suppose you could consider it dangerous, but what is the alternative? No debate at all? The government already runs our public education system, and there is the tendency to separate God from education for fear of "establishing" a religion, so I would say that my position has more to fear from the danger of this game than what yours does.MrSelf wrote:
Don't you think that's a dangerous game to play? Relying on debate to be your check on extremity? All it takes to overcome that is isolation from counter-arguement, which we have seen throughout history that government has an unbalanced ability to control. If government controls your education, then if controls your ability to debate. A naive people is a happy people I guess though....
I personally don't see anything threatening about using debate as a tool for decision making. As long as all view points are considered and not limited in any way, may the best argument win. Sure, the winner and loser of a debate should not be the deciding factor, but it should be allowed to influence that decision.
Don't you feel that even if the masses are "uneducated" on a particular topic, seeing a debate on that topic, though it won't technically educate them on it, will familiarize them with the topic enough to make them able to make in informed decision. (Note: I'm not talking about the sham kind of debates we saw leading up to the election, I'm talking about real debates where people are able to explain and elaborate on their views) If nothing else, a debate enables people, educated or not, to recognize inconsistencies in one side or another, especially when properly pointed out and isolated by the other side. NO?MrSelf wrote: Point: There needs to be more than debate to safeguard laws, people are easily fooled in masses, and that is but one check on the system. Debate alone does not guarrenty just laws are formed. An uneducated mass, subjected to debate, often become blind followers.
Of course, as I said, when you securing the environment of fair and just debate, then information will flow to the majority, if not most, regardless of education(for which some info will be twisted into something else due to lack of education and understanding on the subject.) You assume in your post that the masses are interested in the subject and make an effort to learn the information, which is rarely ever true. If it was, then, again, debate is king. One real issue is that most people can't tell the difference between true fair debate, and the stuff we saw in October.shenbaw wrote:Don't you feel that even if the masses are "uneducated" on a particular topic, seeing a debate on that topic, though it won't technically educate them on it, will familiarize them with the topic enough to make them able to make in informed decision. (Note: I'm not talking about the sham kind of debates we saw leading up to the election, I'm talking about real debates where people are able to explain and elaborate on their views) If nothing else, a debate enables people, educated or not, to recognize inconsistencies in one side or another, especially when properly pointed out and isolated by the other side. NO?MrSelf wrote: Point: There needs to be more than debate to safeguard laws, people are easily fooled in masses, and that is but one check on the system. Debate alone does not guarrenty just laws are formed. An uneducated mass, subjected to debate, often become blind followers.
Of course, once you regulate the debate environment so that it fits within your concept of open and fair, then any "smart candidate" is sure to lose.MrSelf wrote: Secure an environment of open, fair debate, and society wins.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1377, old post ID:18720Subject: Let's do our duty as Christians and speak up!
>
>
>>
>CTV is taking a "YES" or "NO" vote by telephone for Same-Sex Marriage.
They
>have given two separate numbers for "Yes" and "No" votes. I urge you to
take
>part in this voting RIGHT AWAY. All that you have to do is to dial the
>number assigned for "NO vote: 416-870-4400. When you dial the number you
>will hear the response: "Your 'NO' vote has been recorded. Try
to
>spread this message without delay. Thanks.
>
>Please Act fast.
>
Every movement has to start somewhere. People like ourselves just have to push the self-education movement as far as we can.. then we'll put it in a car and drive it the rest of the way... because that would just be smarter..shenbaw wrote: Yeah, I guess I generally put to much faith in the masses by assuming they will educate themselves rather than depending upon others to educate them. I know ->
On second thought, I think hacking should be legal.