Locke

By presenting things as fact, you are asserting you are sure. So in other words, you think you have a way of which to access the universe and you think you don't have a way to access what happened before. You don't actually know. You also can't assert anything Ambassador says is wrong or argue with him, because you aren't even sure what you're saying is fact. For all you know, it's just your imagination. Ambassador's points are just as valid as yours because neither are "facts," it's all subject to one's own reality. In your reality, you can't access what happened before the universe. Ambassador might be able to though, you don't know. How can you make blanket statements about what "we" can do if everyone's reality is different?

Then you assume that "progression" is "good." Why is that? What if someone want regression? Why do you assume progression to be an absolute good if an absolute good doesn't exist?

In eleven states in 2004 it was overwhelmingly decided that gay marriages should be banned. Doesn't that make them "happy?" I also think that "harming others" is impossible to tell. Does doing crack harm others? No. But does being addicted to crack and spending all your money on it when you have kids to support harm others? Sure can. How do we define what objectively will never harm someone else? Lastly, what about people who want to harm others? They are put in prison, which can be harmful in different ways. Aren't we harming them by declaring that their desire to harm others is wrong and unacceptable?

That's not my question. My question is how you determine what is "helping." Helping would mean the result is good, but do you believe in an absolute good? Doesn't that mean that "helping" is subject to one's interpretation of "good?" which is subjective?

Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?" Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?" Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?" Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?" Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?"

I said the law should be blind to social and religious prejudice, that doesn't mean they don't need to help society. If by social program you mean funding poor people for medical treatment they can't afford then I would be for that. As they owe a duty to their citizens. If it's too promote harmful ideas to members of society because of social prejudice then i wouldn't be for it in most cases. Doesn't "helping" society assume an absolute good of some sort, which you deny? You assume that one thing does in fact help a society, but isn't that up for debate if "good" doesn't exist?

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. You said that ideally we wouldn't need laws and regulations. This makes a very powerful assumption. By saying "ideally," you are declaring that there is an absolute good for humanity, and ideally, we wouldn't need laws in order for society to function at a good level. My question remains: do you believe in an absolute good? You seem to suggest that you don't believe in good, yet at the same time you continually make the assumption that laws should exist for the good of the society. How do you define what is the good of society if there is no good? Why do you assume that "not infringing on others" is good if good doesn't actually exist?

That's circular logic. Public domain is only public domain because people decided it would be. What is "generally accepted" is only "generally accepted" because people decided it would be. In the 2004 election, 11 states voted to ban gay marriage all hands down. Doesn't that mean homosexuality is then immoral, because it was overwhelmingly accepted that it should not be legal? I understand your point without you explaining it, my problem is your point is inconsistent. If you don't think "morality" and "immorality" exist, then you cannot say some things are illegal because they are immoral. If you do think "morality" and "immorality" exist, then how do you define it? How do you prove your morality is right and someone else's is wrong? Lastly, do you support a drinking age? Do you support an age to by cigarettes, go to a club, or vote? Do you support laws against any form of drug use, or prostitution? Do you support laws against polygamy? Do you support laws against pedophilia, if the child consents? Do you support any of the following laws: seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, curfew laws, age restrictions on erotica, parental notification laws, obscenity laws, nudity laws, any restrictions on businesses including health violations for restaurants, smoking bands for public places, or any other requirement that a business has to meet in order to operate publicly? Do you support a minimum wage?

It's very dishonest for you to present information like you have. Do you believe in absolute morality, or did I miss something? You seem to have a problem with people basing arguments off opinions, yet you say: Under your suggestion, I would now like you to prove to me what is moral and what is immoral.

Just curious death_by_pod, but aren't you the same user who told me that you can't even be certain my house exists because of the potential subjective nature of reality? How then can you be so sure about the scientific facts you provide? Your views seem to be very inconsistent.

I use a Mac and so my browser icon sits nice and largely on my Dock where I see it all of the time. I quit using Opera because I thought its icon was terribly ugly. Firefox's icon is much more aesthetically pleasing, and that's a HUGE factor in picking my browser. :P

I'm just confused because you seemed to suggest social programs are inherently bad in your previous post. What would make one social program "good" and one "bad" if they are both just a reflection on belief?

I love Ultimate. I'm not sure what's so appealing about it... I don't really like playing sports, but Ultimate is a whole lot of fun.

Did you even read the article or the posts after it?

Hence, the point of the initiative in Washington.

Any social program. Pick one. Their argument would be that marriage is for the progression of society and since homosexuals cannot add to that progression, it should be heterosexual. That is point in the argument that is being referred to in this initiative they are trying to pass in Washington.

I disagree with the generalization that most gay couples have a feminine and masculine person. That hasn't been my experience at all. And you raise the point that I mentioned - we don't really know 100% what could cause a child starting out with a disadvantage. But to say, as you did in your initial post, that the kid can only be "messed up" because kids makes fun of him blatantly ignores a large portion of the psychiatric world who believe, and for legitimate reason, that a child is better off with both a mother and father. My assumption then is that you don't support any form of social programs being paid for and sponsored by the government?

There are plenty of people in the psychiatric world who believe that the child begins life with a disadvantage by not having both a mother and father in the household. It's one of those issues you can never prove one way or the other, but there is evidence that seems to suggest it.

Unless it is the belief of the people that "marriage" as an institution should be man + woman. Everyone in the country can partake in marriage, gay or not, but marriage has to be the joining of man and woman.

Did you know that marriage is an institution of the government?

They aren't actually trying to pass a law, they are trying to prove a point about anti-gay marriage legislation. That's why in the first post I said, "I don't like it when people play with the law just to prove a point."

Homosexuality was condemned in parts of the Bible where it was the societal norm. I don't see how it would make sense from a sociological point of view. The best way to understand intent would be to see in what context the condemnation appears, which we could go into, but it seems that going that far is unnecessary because that is something to be sorted out in between two Christians. For a non-Christian, it doesn't matter. That's not even close to accurate. Some of the places in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned is found in parts referring to extremely wealthy and comfortable people. Once again, I refer you to what I said when you first tried to pretend like you know a good deal about the Bible. Your guesses should never be put off like they have any substantial weight to them at all.

That point assumes that homosexuality was condemned for societal reasons, and not because God wanted to universally condemn it. You don't know that.

I don't understand what your point would be then.

I'm speaking specifically to knowing the culture of the time the Bible was written, why certain parts of the Bible could be considered cultural, and why others could be considered universal statements. I'm not sure what you're saying in your post, but if you are asserting that homosexuality was not accepted in Biblical times when those verses were written (compared to now) you are horribly wrong.