Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[Phatscotty]

Polygamy, which has been around for 3,000+ years and mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, and can probably be found in the majority of religious texts, is more radically transformational than gay marriage, which has been around in a handful of places for 8 years.

Gotchya

[rdsrds2120]

Polygamy, which has been around for 3,000+ years and mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, and can probably be found in the majority of religious texts, is more radically transformational than gay marriage, which has been around in a handful of places for 8 years.

Gotchya

Which states can you get married in a polygamous relationship? Your comparison is a bit off. You're comparing the idea of polygamy to the marriage of homosexuals, not the marriage of polygamists.

Either would be more accurate:

Polygamy, which has been around for 3,000+ years and mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, and can probably be found in the majority of religious texts, is more radically transformational than homosexuality, which has been around since before Grecian times and was honored/sanctioned.

Polygamy, which is not currently legal in the eyes of the law and is mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, and can probably be found in the majority of religious texts, is more radically transformational than gay marriage, which has been around in a handful of places for 8 years.

-rd

[Phatscotty]

My comparison is not at all about what is legal. It's about what is more radical, and more transformational.

[rdsrds2120]

My comparison is not at all about what is legal. It's about what is more radical, and more transformational.

With criteria like that, you could have twisted your analogy to sound any which way.

-rd

[GreecePwns]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

The vast majority, even 99.99999999%, thinking something does not make it true or objective. Just sayin'.

The vast majority of Americans thought the Soviet Union was evil. The vast majority of Soviets thought the Americans were evil. Who was evil?

[chang50]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

Total nonesense I can and do claim Hitler was immoral,subjectively.I'm not even sure humans are ever capable of 100% objectivity since we cannot stop being who we are,even momentarily.Thus if all our opinions and perspectives at any time in our lives are conditioned by the sum of our past experiences,where is the objectivity?In the same way it can be said that all writing is autobiographical,as it is impossible to step outside ourselves.So tell me why can't we have subjective moral positions enshrined in law,as in legal abortion?

[vodean]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

The vast majority, even 99.99999999%, thinking something does not make it true or objective. Just sayin'.

The vast majority of Americans thought the Soviet Union was evil. The vast majority of Soviets thought the Americans were evil. Who was evil?

the soviet government was evil

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

Total nonesense I can and do claim Hitler was immoral,subjectively.I'm not even sure humans are ever capable of 100% objectivity since we cannot stop being who we are,even momentarily.Thus if all our opinions and perspectives at any time in our lives are conditioned by the sum of our past experiences,where is the objectivity?In the same way it can be said that all writing is autobiographical,as it is impossible to step outside ourselves.So tell me why can't we have subjective moral positions enshrined in law,as in legal abortion?

we can be completely impartial on issues we have little knowledge of, or have no ties to whatsoever. that means that if you present me with some issue of... and i dont really give a damn, i will be impartial

[PLAYER57832]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral.

It goes well beyond that. This is a question of what right you have to decide how someone ELSE lives, combined with issues of taxes and benefits the various levels of government have already decided should be afforded married individuals.

Combining those distorts both issues and that is the problem, and creates dissention that the Republicans (to date) have exploited by accepting the conservative social agenda as a means of putting forward their overall pro-big business/anti-any government regulation of those businesses. (note they are fully in favor of government intervention in personal issues like this, so this is hardly about truly "reducing government")

The practical point is not just that having different marriage or union rules will cause havoc in taxes, it will also cause havoc in everything from wills and property ownership to even school attendance. Most of those things are regulated at the state level, so to have this ruled individually by each county would be impossibly complicated. Further, county populations change far more often than those in an entire state. The likelihood is that this type of issue could appear every year (or close) on a ballet and be switched every year or so. That, too would be just untenable.. even if the switch were "only" every 5 years, or 10 years, it would just be too complicated.

And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

ABSOLUTELY incorrect, and why we disagree so heavily on so many issues.

Most laws are based on practicalities, safety and health/welfare of the people in the country. Some laws are passed for the convenience of those in power. Religions/churches are the only ones to pass moral laws, though politicians and other leaders may be quick to claim morality as part of their rhetoric. In fact, when leaders use religion, it inevitably results in oppression, because people do not truly agree on morality. Our system was not as unique as the "stars and stripes" history education most of us get here in the US, nor was it as perfectly implemented as it should have been. However, the ability to accept people of different faiths, values and beliefs is a very fundament of our society and nation, and is a BIG part of why we are as strong as we are.

In fact, by citing Stallin and Hitler, you very much highlight the problem. It is relatively easy for a bully to come into power. The lower the lever, the smaller the population, the easier it is. It has taken Republicans over 30 years to consolidate the power of Big business so fully that it is getting harder and harder to find true disagreement in all but a few obscure places. Ironically, homosexuality is an exception.. because so many young people plain and simply actually know homosexuals and know that they do not present the great harm that was thought/taught in generations past.

[PLAYER57832]

Total nonesense I can and do claim Hitler was immoral,subjectively.

To say he is immoral means he is against your morals. (and absolutely, I agree he was among the most evil people ever!!!!). He had morals, but they were diametrically opposed to ours. Someone who is truly amoral, and such individuals do exist, albiet rarely, has no basis at all upon which to act. They are insane. Hitler had a clear and direct hatred of a group of people whom he blamed. If he were truly without morals, he never could have garnered the support he has. As important as it is to recognize the true evil of HItler, failing to understand why he as able to do what he did, passing him off as an evil anomoly and by extension Germans as well, you risk denying and ignoring the elements in all societies that can very well lead to such things again.

Remember, history is full of great tragedies. Some were (arguably) perhaps even far worse than Hitler, even Pol Pot (to name a modern example) is debatably as bad or worse. Yet, we do not, here villify him the way we do Hitler. Why? Because so many Americans are German, of German ancestry. Becuase Hitler was not some "ignorant foriegn" or "strange" country, it was undeniably modern.. "ultra modern", if you will, a leader in technology and education. It was not just us, but in many ways a country we strived to be like. And then..... this. When we look at Hitler, we feel it, becuase we know how close that country and culture are to our own and that is why it is so important not to just push off the events and actions as some strangeness by an insane man. Sure, we see him as evil, but he was also very, very effecive and absolutely sane. That is the threat of him.


NOTE -- this really belongs in a different thread, but I hesitate to start another on this topic. Not really wanting to start a new conversation, just to counter what you said.

[chang50]

Total nonesense I can and do claim Hitler was immoral,subjectively.

To say he is immoral means he is against your morals. (and absolutely, I agree he was among the most evil people ever!!!!). He had morals, but they were diametrically opposed to ours. Someone who is truly amoral, and such individuals do exist, albiet rarely, has no basis at all upon which to act. They are insane. Hitler had a clear and direct hatred of a group of people whom he blamed. If he were truly without morals, he never could have garnered the support he has. As important as it is to recognize the true evil of HItler, failing to understand why he as able to do what he did, passing him off as an evil anomoly and by extension Germans as well, you risk denying and ignoring the elements in all societies that can very well lead to such things again.

Remember, history is full of great tragedies. Some were (arguably) perhaps even far worse than Hitler, even Pol Pot (to name a modern example) is debatably as bad or worse. Yet, we do not, here villify him the way we do Hitler. Why? Because so many Americans are German, of German ancestry. Becuase Hitler was not some "ignorant foriegn" or "strange" country, it was undeniably modern.. "ultra modern", if you will, a leader in technology and education. It was not just us, but in many ways a country we strived to be like. And then..... this. When we look at Hitler, we feel it, becuase we know how close that country and culture are to our own and that is why it is so important not to just push off the events and actions as some strangeness by an insane man. Sure, we see him as evil, but he was also very, very effecive and absolutely sane. That is the threat of him.


NOTE -- this really belongs in a different thread, but I hesitate to start another on this topic. Not really wanting to start a new conversation, just to counter what you said.

Can't argue with any of the above,you do realise I never said Hitler was amoral?

[Night Strike]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

Total nonesense I can and do claim Hitler was immoral,subjectively.I'm not even sure humans are ever capable of 100% objectivity since we cannot stop being who we are,even momentarily.Thus if all our opinions and perspectives at any time in our lives are conditioned by the sum of our past experiences,where is the objectivity?In the same way it can be said that all writing is autobiographical,as it is impossible to step outside ourselves.So tell me why can't we have subjective moral positions enshrined in law,as in legal abortion?

Of course humans aren't capable of 100% objectivity, which is why we have a Creator who set down the objective morals and immutable truths that are in existence. The problem of morality is the largest problem inherent in evolution and atheism.

[GreecePwns]

And again, this conversation turns to religion, or a set of unfalsifiable claims. Night Strike, for the sake of this conversation morality taught in a religious text cannot be considered objective morality. You talking about a Creator means nothing to me nor other non-Christians. Nothing. It's a cop out.

And you bringing in religion also means your reason for opposing gay marriage is from a religious standpoint, because you believe your religion provides objective morality when it does not. You believe everyone should be subjected to your morality, and don't care about the point I brought up earlier (the one about imposing morality on citizens). You could not care less if you limited freedom in the name of your morality.

My answer to my question is, we should not legislate on moral issues at all because there is no objective morality, no matter what religion you believe in.

The problem of morality is the largest problem inherent in evolution and atheism.

Please elaborate on this, because I'm taking this as "evolutionists and atheists cannot find answers to moral questions." One can find morality in philosophical works for example, or even better, through one's own logic.

[Night Strike]

The problem of morality is the largest problem inherent in evolution and atheism.

Please elaborate on this, because I'm taking this as "evolutionists and atheists cannot find answers to moral questions."

That's essentially correct because morality will always change in a humanistic system. In fact, one cannot actually condemn acts like murder or oppression because that morality is correct in someone else's views or system.

And again, this conversation turns to religion, or a set of unfalsifiable claims. Night Strike, for the sake of this conversation morality taught in a religious text cannot be considered objective morality. You talking about a Creator means nothing to me nor other non-Christians. Nothing. It's a cop out.

Objective morality can never be removed from the situation simply because you don't believe in it. It exists regardless of your beliefs.

[chang50]

The problem of morality is the largest problem inherent in evolution and atheism.

Please elaborate on this, because I'm taking this as "evolutionists and atheists cannot find answers to moral questions."

That's essentially correct because morality will always change in a humanistic system. In fact, one cannot actually condemn acts like murder or oppression because that morality is correct in someone else's views or system.

And again, this conversation turns to religion, or a set of unfalsifiable claims. Night Strike, for the sake of this conversation morality taught in a religious text cannot be considered objective morality. You talking about a Creator means nothing to me nor other non-Christians. Nothing. It's a cop out.

Objective morality can never be removed from the situation simply because you don't believe in it. It exists regardless of your beliefs.

And lucky old you has the knowledge of what is objectively moral,that is not shared by the vast majority of people on this planet,you are indeed blessed!

[GreecePwns]

Here is me condemning murder through non-religious arguments:

Why is murder bad? Because, as many philosophers have argued, everyone has a right to life. Murder is a limitation of one's rights and should be condemned for this reason.

Why is "oppression" bad? Because "oppression," in its many forms, is a limitation of one's rights and should be condemned for this reason.

Sounds very libertarian doesn't it? People may disagree, which is why we shouldn't legislate morality at all. If we have to, it should be at the town level, where if one wishes to live in a place where murder and oppression are legal, the can do much more easily. A federal system with more jurisdictions which have this power increases the happiness of citizens because people can simply move to somewhere which closely matches their morality.

In conclusion, you want to live in a place governed by Christian values? Go ahead, but don't make me do that and I won't make you live in a place governed by logic.

A world of 1 million nations of 6000 people is a better place than a world of 120 nations of 46 million people.

[Night Strike]

But where do those "rights" come from? From a group of people that can decide whether or not they want to give or rescind those rights whenever they choose? People are "endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights". There is no other source of permanent rights or objective morality apart from a Creator.

[GreecePwns]

So what? Every religion has their own take on what the creator is and what morality to follow. People can believe in a creator while not believing in Christianity (or religion at all, like the guys who wrote that).

What makes your take any more special than the others so as to make it objective morality? Because you believe it, and you believe everyone should be like you?

[chang50]

But where do those "rights" come from? From a group of people that can decide whether or not they want to give or rescind those rights whenever they choose? People are "endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights". There is no other source of permanent rights or objective morality apart from a Creator.

You may well be right that there is no other source,why does there have to be permanent rights or objective morality at all? Because they would be desirable is not an answer.

[Night Strike]

But where do those "rights" come from? From a group of people that can decide whether or not they want to give or rescind those rights whenever they choose? People are "endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights". There is no other source of permanent rights or objective morality apart from a Creator.

You may well be right that there is no other source,why does there have to be permanent rights or objective morality at all? Because they would be desirable is not an answer.

Because without an objective truth or objective morality, you cannot condemn people who do something you think is immoral. If someone thinks it's moral to kill people who disagree with them, then you can't stop them because they're just acting on their personal morality. There has to be an existence of an absolute morality.

So what? Every religion has their own take on what the creator is and what morality to follow. People can believe in a creator while not believing in Christianity (or religion at all, like the guys who wrote that).

You clearly haven't studied the actual documents written by the Founding Fathers. No one who actually reads their words could legitimately make that claim.

[GreecePwns]

Benjamin Franklin: "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." and "...Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

James Madison: ""Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." and "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

John Adams: "Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?" and "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Thomas Jefferson: "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." and "Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

George Washington: Jefferson said "Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."

Ethan Allen: "I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not."

C'mon man, don't even go there.

In case you're not sure, deism is belief in a god without believing in religion (in other words, through philosophy).

[chang50]

But where do those "rights" come from? From a group of people that can decide whether or not they want to give or rescind those rights whenever they choose? People are "endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable rights". There is no other source of permanent rights or objective morality apart from a Creator.

You may well be right that there is no other source,why does there have to be permanent rights or objective morality at all? Because they would be desirable is not an answer.

Because without an objective truth or objective morality, you cannot condemn people who do something you think is immoral. If someone thinks it's moral to kill people who disagree with them, then you can't stop them because they're just acting on their personal morality. There has to be an existence of an absolute morality.


Societies do behave exactly like that,making judgements on its members,we can only hope they get it right,often they fail to.Since its impossible to prove the existence of this creator it must at least be possible that morality is man made and ultimately subjective.

[macbone]

Wheee! Quotations! As we can see from the following, the Founding Fathers were just dudes like anyone else, and they fall on several different areas of the religious spectrum (but they're mostly limited to Christian and Deist ideologies, even that wild man, Thomas Paine (=).

"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.... That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."

- Benjamin Franklin (Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)

"How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical." - Thomas Pain on deism

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?" - John Adams

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." - Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776.)

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." - Patrick Henry (Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776.)

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." - Thomas Paine, the Age of Reason

Here's an interesting site that breaks down FF by professed religion: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_F ... igion.html

And finally, an article from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21541718

show

A selection:

If Jefferson was a Christian of any kind, he was an idiosyncratic one. He admired Jesus as a moral teacher but like many of America’s revolutionaries, he had a visceral loathing for priestcraft. Jefferson blamed Saint Paul, the early Church, and even the Gospel writers for distorting the mission of Jesus, which, as he saw it, had been to reverse the decadence of the Jewish religion. Starting from the (correct) proposition that mystical ideas originating from Plato were influential when Christian theology was being developed, he castigated followers of the Greek philosopher for corrupting what he saw as the original Christian message.

Did Jefferson believe in God? Certainly not the Christian idea of a God in three Persons; he saw that notion as incomprehensible and therefore impossible for a rational person to accept. One view is that like many of America’s founders, he was a Deist, believing in a Creator who set the universe and its laws in motion but did not intervene thereafter. (The Deist God has been described as rather like a rich aunt in Australia—benevolent, a long way off, and mostly leaving the world to its own devices.)

The shape of the Earth, for example, he ascribed to a Creator’s genius. “Had He created the Earth perfectly spherical, its axis might have been perpetually shifting by the influence of the other bodies of the system,” Jefferson once told Thomson. Others think Jefferson’s views were somewhere between Deism and traditional Theism. In language that some modern American conservatives can pounce on, he once asked whether the young republic’s liberties could be secure without “a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God”. But that does not imply he held such convictions. Although we know what Jefferson did not believe, it is harder to say what he did believe.

[natty dread]

Of course humans aren't capable of 100% objectivity, which is why we have a Creator who set down the objective morals and immutable truths that are in existence. The problem of morality is the largest problem inherent in evolution and atheism.

Hahahaha oh wow.jpg

Care to expand on that little nugget of stupidity you just blurted out? Why is morality "a problem" for atheism or evolution? There is no objective morality, that's a stupid daydream for silly little babies who still need their security blanket in form of a big stupid fairy tale called GOD.


On another note, marriage should be legal between any number of consenting adults of any gender. There's absolutely no reason not to. Unless you're a religious bigot who wants to impose your ancient bronze-age moral codes on other people.

[AAFitz]

Define radical.

outside of tradition, outside of the norm, fundamental change, against the main stream

Oh, like Ron Paul.

Why didn't you just say that?

New Poll:

Which Candidate is most radically transformational?

1. Romney
2. Obama

There aren't any other candidates now, but if you can think of some others from the past you can write them in.

[InkL0sed]

Assuming there are no tax incentives for marriage (an easily fixable thing):

Why stop at the county level? While the degree is lessened, there is still a chance to legislate and impose morality on others. So why not at the town level, to lessen this even more? Why legislate morality at all? There is no such thing as objective morality, so why act as if there is?

Of course there is objective morality. If not, then you can't even claim people like Hitler or Stalin or Mao were immoral. And every single law passed at every single level is based on a moral position, so you're actually asking for us to not pass any laws and let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what is not.

In which Night Strike summarizes the entire field of moral philosophy in two sentences.