Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[Night Strike]

Why is morality "a problem" for atheism or evolution? There is no objective morality,

Your immediate statement answers your own question. If you believe in atheism, you believe there is nothing greater than man, so if man chooses to take an action, then it is moral for him (or the group) to do that, whether another person (or group) thinks it's immoral. You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

[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.

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

dumbass... that was three sentences

[Ace Rimmer]

Why is morality "a problem" for atheism or evolution? There is no objective morality,

Your immediate statement answers your own question. If you believe in atheism, you believe there is nothing greater than man, so if man chooses to take an action, then it is moral for him (or the group) to do that, whether another person (or group) thinks it's immoral. You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

You do not understand atheism. If you would like to understand, I'm happy to help.

[vodean]

Why is morality "a problem" for atheism or evolution? There is no objective morality,

Your immediate statement answers your own question. If you believe in atheism, you believe there is nothing greater than man, so if man chooses to take an action, then it is moral for him (or the group) to do that, whether another person (or group) thinks it's immoral. You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

You do not understand atheism. If you would like to understand, I'm happy to help.

what NS is saying is true, its just most athiests share similar morals. some of us think liberalism is immoral, but many are liberals, so they are a little compromised on this topic.

[GreecePwns]

You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

This is precisely what I'm saying to you. Anyone can say their morality is the objective morality, which is why we can say with certainty that there is no objective morality, and therefore, one has no authority to claim that their morals are any better than any other person's morals. Got it? We should not legislate on matters where we have no authority to do so. We should allow small individual communities to decide, so as to make it easy for anyone who believes cost of living in a community outweigh the of living in the community to relocate to one that better matches them, thereby increasing the happiness of everyone.

[rdsrds2120]

You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

This is precisely what I'm saying to you. Anyone can say their morality is the objective morality, which is why we can say with certainty that there is no objective morality, and therefore, one has no authority to claim that their morals are any better than any other person's morals. Got it? We should not legislate on matters where we have no authority to do so. We should allow small individual communities to decide, so as to make it easy for anyone who believes cost of living in a community outweigh the of living in the community to relocate to one that better matches them, thereby increasing the happiness of everyone.

I'll sum up the first part of GreecePwn's post with a simple metaphor about objective morality:

It's a chest you must open with the crowbar you will find inside.

-rd

[Phatscotty]

I think gay marriage will have to wait one more generation. Today's 1st graders are being shaped into tomorrow's civilian army, fully pre-programed and jackbooted, down for whatever

[GreecePwns]

Phatscotty, why do you hate freedom?

[thegreekdog]

Phatscotty, why do you hate freedom?

He's a fake Ron Paulite. Seriously. Between this anti-gay marriage stuff and his defense of police officers that commit brutal crimes, I'm taking away his Ron Paul card.

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, why do you hate freedom?

He's a fake Ron Paulite. Seriously. Between this anti-gay marriage stuff and his defense of police officers that commit brutal crimes, I'm taking away his Ron Paul card.

then you aren't listening. I support the states having a say, just like Ron Paul does. You got the assault comments twisted too.

Like I said before, I support Gay marriage.
Didn't you publicly give up your Tea Party card a while ago?

[thegreekdog]

Phatscotty, why do you hate freedom?

He's a fake Ron Paulite. Seriously. Between this anti-gay marriage stuff and his defense of police officers that commit brutal crimes, I'm taking away his Ron Paul card.

then you aren't listening. I support the states having a say, just like Ron Paul does. You got the assault comments twisted too.

Didn't you publicly give up your Tea Party card a while ago?

Yes I did.

Your comments as to whether a federal solution is appropriate are less about states' rights and more about arguing the underlying point. For example, I haven't read an argument from you saying "Gay marriage should be left to the states." Similarly, I haven't read many (or any) arguments from you saying that any of the Bill of Rights is relevant to discusions (except for the 2nd amendment).

The assault comments aren't twisted either; you're attempting to justify the police officer's actions when the actions are unjustifiable. I can only assume you believe in the state when it's the state (and not the federal government); that seems to be the antithesis of "freedom" and "don't tread on me."

[Phatscotty]

That's all I've been arguing, is for states rates, 100%.

You are wrong about the other comments.

[thegreekdog]

That's all I've been arguing, is for states rates, 100%.

You are wrong about the other comments.

I need to see some more comments from you to that effect (other than "you're wrong").

Like, how do you reconcile this comment:

I think gay marriage will have to wait one more generation. Today's 1st graders are being shaped into tomorrow's civilian army, fully pre-programed and jackbooted, down for whatever

with that you are for states rights 100%.

[Phatscotty]

That's all I've been arguing, is for states rates, 100%.

You are wrong about the other comments.

I need to see some more comments from you to that effect (other than "you're wrong").

Like, how do you reconcile this comment:

I think gay marriage will have to wait one more generation. Today's 1st graders are being shaped into tomorrow's civilian army, fully pre-programed and jackbooted, down for whatever

with that you are for states rights 100%.

Yup. The decision of this generation (in America) is basically being made, as we speak. Gay marriage is not going to fly at this time. Just observing reality. It might fly in a handful of states, and that is fine.

New York voted to recognize same sex couples, and that is great, and they have my support. They did it the right way, IMO.

[natty dread]

You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

Bravo! Ten points to Night Strike! You're finally grasping some basic concepts of reality.

I don't have any authority to claim that my morals are objective. And neither have you, or anyone else. Not even if you claim your morals are given to you by some bronze-age invention known as "GOD".

Therefore, what is considered moral is defined by consensus, in such a way that is beneficial to the collective. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they want as long as their actions cause no harm to others, nor deprive others of their freedom to do what they want as long as their actions cause no harm to others... and so on and so on. Hey, it's recursive morality! Everyone wins!

[Haggis_McMutton]

You have no authority to claim that your morals are better than any other person's morals.

Bravo! Ten points to Night Strike! You're finally grasping some basic concepts of reality.

I don't have any authority to claim that my morals are objective. And neither have you, or anyone else. Not even if you claim your morals are given to you by some bronze-age invention known as "GOD".

Therefore, what is considered moral is defined by consensus, in such a way that is beneficial to the collective. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they want as long as their actions cause no harm to others, nor deprive others of their freedom to do what they want as long as their actions cause no harm to others... and so on and so on. Hey, it's recursive morality! Everyone wins!

But if we allow gay marriage god will kill a couple more hundred k people with hurricanes and tsunamis, therefore gay marriage is immoral.

CHECKMATE.

[Nola_Lifer]

So if I wanna marry 5 dudes is that gay marriage or polygamy?

[thegreekdog]

That's all I've been arguing, is for states rates, 100%.

You are wrong about the other comments.

I need to see some more comments from you to that effect (other than "you're wrong").

Like, how do you reconcile this comment:

I think gay marriage will have to wait one more generation. Today's 1st graders are being shaped into tomorrow's civilian army, fully pre-programed and jackbooted, down for whatever

with that you are for states rights 100%.

Yup. The decision of this generation (in America) is basically being made, as we speak. Gay marriage is not going to fly at this time. Just observing reality. It might fly in a handful of states, and that is fine.

New York voted to recognize same sex couples, and that is great, and they have my support. They did it the right way, IMO.

How about in the other gay marriage thread (not that one, the other one... no, not that one, the other other one)?

[Haggis_McMutton]

So if I wanna marry 5 dudes is that gay marriage or polygamy?

gaylygamy?

[Phatscotty]

That's all I've been arguing, is for states rates, 100%.

You are wrong about the other comments.

I need to see some more comments from you to that effect (other than "you're wrong").

Like, how do you reconcile this comment:

I think gay marriage will have to wait one more generation. Today's 1st graders are being shaped into tomorrow's civilian army, fully pre-programed and jackbooted, down for whatever

with that you are for states rights 100%.

Yup. The decision of this generation (in America) is basically being made, as we speak. Gay marriage is not going to fly at this time. Just observing reality. It might fly in a handful of states, and that is fine.

New York voted to recognize same sex couples, and that is great, and they have my support. They did it the right way, IMO.

How about in the other gay marriage thread (not that one, the other one... no, not that one, the other other one)?

I'm gonna guess whatever you are bringing up was me talking about how I might personally vote on the issue?

[natty dread]

So if I wanna marry 5 dudes is that gay marriage or polygamy?

homosexual polyamory

[thegreekdog]

I'm gonna guess whatever you are bringing up was me talking about how I might personally vote on the issue?

Hmm... I think you're right. Fair enough.

[Phatscotty]

I'm gonna guess whatever you are bringing up was me talking about how I might personally vote on the issue?

Hmm... I think you're right. Fair enough.

It's not me or "my side" that can't handle a loss, because I can and we can. The other side, on the other hand, when they lose the issue when it's put to the people, they get a judge to overturn the vote of the people and impose the changes anyways.

It's almost tyrannical.

the other comment you are trying to pull my Ron Paul card over is an assumption too. All I said was if the victim did not escalate and disrespect and provoke and dare, there was a good chance there would not have been an escalation. I already said that doesn't excuse the cops. The only thing that bothers me over there is most people excusing the victim or that he played any part or didn't do anything wrong and it was all the cops just out for blood or something. A person telling the cops to start punching them shows police that they have someone who wants to fight on their hands. That changes the responses of the police in dealing with the situation, as well as their attitudes, obviously.

[vodean]

So if I wanna marry 5 dudes is that gay marriage or polygamy?

its both.

So if I wanna marry 5 dudes is that gay marriage or polygamy?

homosexual polyamory

no, thats only if they are all getting married in a five-way relationship. if you marry them, and keep the marriages separate, or just keep their relationships with you alone, its homosexual polygamy

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

Haha, both. The American government didn't kill as many civilians, so that might be worth something. Then again, supporting dictatorships for decades should be factored in.

Either way you look at it, both of those governments committed many evil deeds. One would have to be a devout nationalist to not realize that.