Satenza

And therefore they are fine to vote that way.

The whole principle is to decide whats harmful and whats not harmful for society. If they beleive that it's not harmful to society then it doesn't harm society in anyway and is therefore better for society to have individuals living life experiments so that society can progress.

You said that people should not ban things on sociological or religious reasons, yet you said any reason is good enough for a majority to ban something. That is inconsistent. No I said discrimination. Such as "I beleive homosexual people are alright, and not harming anyone. However my religion deems that it isn't right therefore i will vote against it". Since their beleif is that it won't harm anyone yet they go against their own beleif. Or "I think homosexual activity should be banned, but wait. The rest of society beleives otherwise therefore i will go against my own beleif and vote for what everyone else wants".

Just because i didn't say "not having any reason at all is discrimination" doesn't mean I am being inconsistent.

How are they now inconsistent?

This discussion is based on using a harm principle style of governing people. So yes it is important. What they beleive to be harm is very important.

If people think it's better to have no reason then they still have no reason. How would that be relevant to any policy? Can you provide an example? Edit: Oh you are saying me classing "It's better this way" as a reason allows for discrimination. Well people would be educated on the harm principle and therefore theoreticaly wouldn't just vote out of "it's better this way" but out of what they truley think is best for society. However since morals are subjective they should have the ability too vote as long as they have a reason. Discrimination meaning not having a reason and so shouldn't happen.

If the majority of people "just don't like" homosexual marriage, and they think society would be better without it, discrimination is the reason. I don't see that, if the majority of people don't like it and think society will be better without it they arn't discriminating because they have reason for it. Practically speaking yes, there couldn't be anyway of working out why someone voted against something. However the fact that it's subjective allows things to change. The people would be taught through education and so forth that when they vote they require a reason.

How is that fanatic? Your arguing that people use 'cute little stories' like Adam and Eve and take them to be true. I am saying they use other stoires which arn't so cute too justify a lot worse things.

Discrimination in this society is 'having no reason at all'. So if someones reason for banning homosexuality is 'having no reason at all' that 'no reason at all' does not count as a reason and it's therefore still discrimination.

There not all "cute little stories" the Bible is a very dangerous tool.

If you believe that banning gay marriage is discrimination it still doesn't effect that it's being done because people think it's best for society. Period. I said it's fine as long as people have a reason if they choose to ban it for no reason at all then it is discrimination. Notice the word "however?" You were specifically referencing the first part of your post. Actually, the first part was in referance to my own personal opinion which is why I seperated each part from each other. The second paragraph refers to what the state should do. I was not calling religious or social beleif discrimination. The point is that under your own beliefs, the reason doesn't matter. Yet in your initial post, you claimed the reason does in fact matter. The absence of a reason matters, as long as the reason is present and is what the person beleives to be best for society then it doesn't matter. If anyone is to vote against what they beleive is best for society there vote shouldn't count.

Got it right there, a astroid hitting the earth is concivable to happen, wheras four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water at a rate of 220 metres of rainfall everyday when a few centimetres is considered to be heavy rain is totally ridiculous. This is of course going off the bible which claims water covered the mountain tops. Source

I said should be blind to religious and socilogical discrimination. The people of society should vote for firstly what they beleive to be best for society not for their own gain (unless they beleive their own gain is best for society). Discrimination is different to reason, discrimination would be that person voting against something for the fact they don't themselves like it. If a man doesn't like homosexuality yet beleives allowing it is best for society then by voting against homosexuality he is going against his beleifs and discriminating. If he has a reason for the banning then that is a lot different to discriminating against it. By discrimination i mean they are banning something for nothing as there is no reason.

My point is that just because a theory remains valid by other scientists doesn't mean it can be a sound theory. For example some 'scientists' use parts of evidence to prove different biblical events.

I never asked for forgiveness I never tried to set it right I continue with my fight To settle what i beleive to be right The world has changed, I made it that way, With the world on my shoulders I should settle this plight.

I would put mankind, Before my country, I would correct my mistakes, I would change the world I blame myself, For the death I caused, I should have thought it through Then began my cause I have made mistakes, I have ignored earthquakes, With my burden so heavy, I should have rethought my theory.

I disagree, just because something can't be disproved doesn't mean it can be proved. Take the example of a teapot orbiting the earth. No-one can know if it exists because it's too small to see. Do you beleive a teapot is orbiting the earth because you can't disprove that it is? That doesn't make my beleif or theory of the tea pot valid.

Thats true, however the scientist fundementalists are not going on blind faith. They are going from experience and evidence which draws a line between them.

Thats the most ironic post i have ever read. The fact is you are using a falliable book to produce infalliable 'rules' of how we all must live. When in actual fact by following such stories and taking their meaning you could justify pretty much anything. Such as the man who killed a docter outside his abortion clinic because he thought it was a justified killing. His friend backed up the killing and beleived his (executed) friend to be in heaven celebrating the murder of a docter with Jesus. What a pretty fairytale.

Eh, why do people keep calling the Ten Commandments a good scripture which tells us good morals. It has two good practical points that any man not in the state of nature would feel it natural to abide by. Once a state is created it protects the individual and so murder and theft is obviously going to be against the rules. No matter if could be concived to be right under some circumstances every state has been created to protect it's people from each other and it's own citizens.

Correct reasons is that they beleive in what they are doing is best for society as a whole. So the vote is subjective to them which is should be. If they vote against what they beleive then they are going against the principle of why democratic state exists in the first place - they don't know their freedom or influence and so shouldn't take part.

Man, get off it. The Egyptians were building Pyramids 6,000 years ago. The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. At all. No chance. Ever. No, just no. I believe I read somewhere yesterday that the Earth could be, at the very least, a few million years old. There is absolutely zero chance that it is 6,000 years old. It's just a fact and fundamentalists are only hurting themselves believing it. Fundamentalists are hurting themselves by being fundamentalists. Huh? Let them just be that way. No, their wild and stupid beleifs indoctrinate our society as it is. Think about the children who are taught about ilogical and pointless gibberish from a book with can be used and has been used to justify r@pe, genocide and murder. I for one don't ever want to rest and allow these lunaticts to preach dangerous thoughts to minds which beleive what they are told by authoritarian figures. It annoys me people can stand by wand watch as young minds are corrupted by fundementalist attitude. These people grow up, they are thrown into a world where they only know they and they alone are right. Why do we have terrorism? Why do we have killings in the name of religion? I'm sick of people defending it and saying "Well not all of us beleive this to be so - the bible acts as a moral hand book" when infact even the symbolic justify r@pe, murder, human sacrifice, genocide, sexism and much much more. A world without religion allows good people to do good things and bad people to do bad things. A world with religion allows good people to do bad things. I know that the first option seems a lot more attractive. R@pe is blocked for some stupid reason.

Which means that if people vote to ban gay marriage, they are no more forcing their views of morality on people than you do when you support different laws. Wham! Gotcha! :wink: Satenza, you walked into that one with your mouth open! Good logic, Locke. I walked into nothing, I have been talking about my personal opinion whether society in general reflects that is completley different and I agreed with Locke.

Wouldn't count because they have not voted for what they beleive is best for society. Even if what they voted on is what they beleived yet they hadn't voted that way for the correct reason.