• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

hockeylover said:
Are you ****ing insane?
Click to expand...

Allow me to slip into the abyss of the other side and actually defend KB. (mark this date in your calendars, and save this post)
It's no so much that KB is insane, but that his "knowledge" is limited very strictly to what his RW bloggers wrote about. It's another form of "elevator doesn't go to the top floor." The buttons for the top floor are there, but since nobody he reads ever pushed one, he won't either.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
because morality and ethics don't (shouldn't) follow national boundaries. you are slipping into moral relativism again.
Click to expand...

Except they do.

Which is why Saudi Arabia executes hundreds of people per year by sword-point and believes it immoral for women to drive or be seen in public without being escorted by a male relative and we believe such principles are gross violations of individual human rights.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
meaningless non sequitur. you are trying to narrow this down, to suggest that "morality" is only what we define it as here in canada. it isn't. calling me "insane" is a mindless jab.
Click to expand...

She's not suggesting that at all. She's suggesting that our morality is one in a constant state of flux and has changed from its previously accepted incarnations into the currently accepted one.

Which is how a subjective set of transformative principles works.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
The fact is that the prevailing opinion in all Western states will be one that is openly friendly to all gay marriages within our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

prove it. you're suggesting now that you are are so wise, you can look into the future and define as "fact" what people are going to be thinking decades from now? hogwash.
 
corksens said:
We also shouldn't force public servants to preform a ceremony for same-sex couples if it offends their religious convictions. Simply ask another person to preform the service.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. And again, there's been nothing in the changes to force this, either.
Just like doctors aren't forced to perform abortions, either.
They simply want a union that is legal under the law of the land. Since it does not affect me in any way whatsoever, I have zero issues with it.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
She's not suggesting that at all. She's suggesting that our morality is one in a constant state of flux and has changed from its previously accepted incarnations into the currently accepted one.

Which is how a subjective set of transformative principles works.
Click to expand...

yes, she was suggesting that when she asked why "we were talking globally".

and morality is NOT in a "constant state of flux". it isn't. it changes around the edges, it grows. it adapts. but fundamental morality is NOT constantly in flux.

and morality is most definitely NOT "a subjective set of transformative principles".
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong. this is the central truth that you don't accept, and because of that your whole concept of what "marriage" is is skewed. this is where you fundamentally overturn nature, and morality, and thousands of years of socialization.

if you hold that marriage isn't about children, then you are arguing that marriage is simply about two people coming together to have sex with each other and to benefit only each other. it makes it INTENSELY and exclusively a selfish institution. it exists solely to benefit one or the other or both partners in it, that's all. it is narcissism. it is selfishness.

when you raise marriage to be what it has become (before the 20th century has worked to debase it), it becomes an essential social construct that is beneficial for the species and for society as a whole. it is intensely SOCIAL. it exists both to help and benefit the two partners, and just as importantly, to create and benefit new life that helps society. not every man and woman can come together to produce children. but men and women coming together to produce children is the necessary precondition for the creation of life and for the continued survival of the species. marriage is one of the constructs that has raised humanity above animals in the sense that that process isn't just about running around fornicating to scratch our biological urges- like animals do. marriage humanizes us. it elevates us.

and women- i ask you to consider- how has the institution of marriage been beneficial to the advancement of your gender?
Click to expand...

Whether something is "selfish" or not is a meaningless construction. And it doesn't detract from whether the act has meaning to two consenting individuals or not just because you believe it might not.

Which ironically is why you appear so selfish to everyone in this thread.

And again, ironically, human beings are not naturally inclined to monogamous relationships, since they have a tendency to "trade up" so often when another option is presented. There is nothing natural about the constructed Victorian-style composition of marriage whatsoever. It's not prevalent throughout the world in the manner that you seem to interpret it nearly to the degree that you think it is. In fact, since you seem so keen on appealing to mass popularity: bigamy and polygamy is extensively practiced throughout the developing world and is considered quite normal. South African President Jacob Zuma has had six wives, currently has four, and has sired over twenty children. A fact that is not particularly shocking in Zulu or Xhosa culture.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
meaningless non sequitur. you are trying to narrow this down, to suggest that "morality" is only what we define it as here in canada. it isn't. calling me "insane" is a mindless jab.
Click to expand...

I'm completely gobsmacked that you're using the fact that say, 1.4 billion people in India probably don't believe in gay marriage as an argument against it here.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
prove it. you're suggesting now that you are are so wise, you can look into the future and define as "fact" what people are going to be thinking decades from now? hogwash.
Click to expand...

What do you mean prove it?

The youth overwhelmingly supports of gay marriage in higher and higher proportions the younger you go. When young children are growing up in an environment that is overwhelmingly positive of certain ideals their children will also hold the same standards, and likely become even more liberal about currently-held taboos.

That's how demographic trends work. By the time you die the majority of states will have some form of same-sex marriage legislation.
 
hockeylover said:
I'm completely gobsmacked that you're using the fact that say, 1.4 billion people in India probably don't believe in gay marriage as an argument against it here.
Click to expand...

That's 70 million gay Indians using the normal homosexual proportions in a given population. Lots of gays in that lot. India's also becoming a lot more socially liberal as time goes by.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
yes, she was suggesting that when she asked why "we were talking globally".

and morality is NOT in a "constant state of flux". it isn't. it changes around the edges, it grows. it adapts. but fundamental morality is NOT constantly in flux.

and morality is most definitely NOT "a subjective set of transformative principles".
Click to expand...

First, you had zero clue what she was suggesting. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Secondly, yeah morality definitely is subjective and ever-changing.

Unless you sacrifice goats to Yaweh and own six Assyrian slaves and beat your wife it is.
 
KB's version of morality:

Agree with me and you are moral.

People that are truly moral try to solve real life problems/moral issues..they accept the imperfections of human beings and try to help EVERYONE.

The real imperfection are human beings as a whole not what any individual person is.
 
Last edited:
Leafovic said:
you do realize that there is nothing "natural" about marriage?
Click to expand...

thank you, thank you, thank you for making this point. i have been waiting for pages now for someone to make it. (kinda ironic that the gay guy did it?)

no- marriage is NOT natural. which is why it was so special. which is why it is so valuable and necessary. which is why it took so long to develop. which is why it is so important to protect. if we see ourselves as mere animals, our natural state is to run out and f*ck whoever we can whenever we can to carry on the species. if we see ourselves as evolved human beings that are reflections of god who elevated us, then we need things like the institution of marriage to help us be that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top