General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
BioTrash
 
When gods can deliver their messages to us in ways other than thousand-year-old texts re-written/interpreted every couple hundred years by ambitious clergymen..
__________________
my mind is the snake that eats its own tail
Old 01-16-2008, 01:50 PM BioTrash is offline  
Reply With Quote
#16  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Innocence
 
Huckabee - Democrat in disguise, fuckin up the Republicans at every turn.
Old 01-16-2008, 01:59 PM Innocence is offline  
Reply With Quote
#17  

DivineStorm
I talk shit on the internet because in real life i'm a huge fucking pussy faggot
 
DivineStorm's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
It doesn't work to legislate morality or religion, and that is exactly what this is doing. Will never work.
Ever heard of the Corpus Juris Canonici, or hell, ius naturale and subsequently all the codification efforts during the Age of Enlightenment? My point exactly.

Still, I'd would be fiercely against it, but mostly due to other reasons I don't really feel like explaining right now~
Old 01-16-2008, 03:15 PM DivineStorm is offline  
Reply With Quote
#18  

cromicus
I act tough on genmay, but real life im a pussy
 
cromicus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt00926 View Post
Isn't God supposed to be incomprehensible
unless you write a prophetic book about god
__________________
you shall see hail fall from a clear sky
Old 01-16-2008, 03:41 PM cromicus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#19  

ZenMonkey
I have no sexual preference.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PopeKevinI View Post
I assume he's talking about two things: abortion and marriage. Those can be addressed without invoking God at all...saying what he said only serves to sabotage his position.

I can see abortion being addressed without invoking God but, does anybody think that someone can be opposed to gay marriage for any reason other than that of religion?

Maybe I'm too narrow minded about this?

In either case I'm glad he made it so blatant. Hopefully, this is the end of his run for president although you never know.
__________________
540a02d9802e69e4ef1f7eef483a3ae6 [pornmay.com]
Old 01-16-2008, 05:03 PM ZenMonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#20  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenMonkey View Post
I can see abortion being addressed without invoking God but, does anybody think that someone can be opposed to gay marriage for any reason other than that of religion?

Maybe I'm too narrow minded about this?

In either case I'm glad he made it so blatant. Hopefully, this is the end of his run for president although you never know.

well there's one argument I've heard that I found utterly hilarious but it's the only one that doesn't involve religion

the argument was based on the fact that heterosexual couples have a greater ability to create multiple children and that the state's responsibility is to ensure it's own growth and the best way to do that is to support policies that lead to more families....or something

anyways, he explained it a lot better than I did and he truly did believe it and has no religious affiliation whatsoever. he's just a dick
Old 01-16-2008, 05:12 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#21  

lemcool
notyou
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyNavy View Post
well there's one argument I've heard that I found utterly hilarious but it's the only one that doesn't involve religion

the argument was based on the fact that heterosexual couples have a greater ability to create multiple children and that the state's responsibility is to ensure it's own growth and the best way to do that is to support policies that lead to more families....or something

What about the fact that a gay couple is FAR more likely to adopt than a straight couple? Kids who grow up in foster homes without a strong support system are less likely to be able to go to college (because of financial and support issues) and in turn less likely to make a strong positive difference in our world? No I have no source, and quite frankly, I am not going to look for one.


Over population is becoming an issue, lots of straight couples are having kids when there's an abundance of kids who don't have a loving family and can use one.


Instead of supporting families who grow via standard reproduction, perhaps teh state should start supporting families who adopt, and thus keep kids out of lower income foster homes that can't give a proper enviroment. Didn't you see Free Willy? All graffiti is done by foster kids, ALL OF IT.
__________________
I am notyou. seriously.
Old 01-16-2008, 05:28 PM lemcool is offline  
Reply With Quote
#22  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DivineStorm View Post
Ever heard of the Corpus Juris Canonici, or hell, ius naturale and subsequently all the codification efforts during the Age of Enlightenment? My point exactly.

Still, I'd would be fiercely against it, but mostly due to other reasons I don't really feel like explaining right now~

Oh I have heard of both. The Catholic church trying to run things led to the Protestant reformation and freedom from papal rule in Europe. The Roman system led to their empire being spread too thin and being unable to fund their system... much like the U.S. is getting to. You cannot have law based on morals and ideals that do not have support from the consensus of the entire population.
Old 01-16-2008, 07:24 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#23  

ManSandwichMayo
BelgianSandwich
stfu you cracka
 
Huckabee stole the religious right vote from Thompson.

Fucking asshole
__________________
Atheocon!!!

916a9e42e7c32e2967258d5b221f5f06 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 01-16-2008, 08:51 PM ManSandwichMayo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#24  

BigFuzzyArchon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Oh I have heard of both. The Catholic church trying to run things led to the Protestant reformation and freedom from papal rule in Europe. The Roman system led to their empire being spread too thin and being unable to fund their system... much like the U.S. is getting to. You cannot have law based on morals and ideals that do not have support from the consensus of the entire population.

I'm beginning to believe that every society is trying to become rulers of earth. Shouldn't this be a goal as human beings?
Old 01-16-2008, 09:08 PM BigFuzzyArchon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#25  

Opajew
old grizzled jew
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allnighte View Post
im glad he said this. i dont want to see him go any farther in the election
__________________
RIP sam, best KITTAH ever.... :(

3-27-03.....

mark my words, the Athlon64 will be the GeForce FX of CPUs when it comes out. -the terabyte
mark my words - someday i will host a LAN this big.. sure, it'll be when im 35 or something, but i will.. -T
Old 01-16-2008, 10:04 PM Opajew is offline  
Reply With Quote
#26  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by notyou View Post
What about the fact that a gay couple is FAR more likely to adopt than a straight couple? Kids who grow up in foster homes without a strong support system are less likely to be able to go to college (because of financial and support issues) and in turn less likely to make a strong positive difference in our world? No I have no source, and quite frankly, I am not going to look for one.


Over population is becoming an issue, lots of straight couples are having kids when there's an abundance of kids who don't have a loving family and can use one.


Instead of supporting families who grow via standard reproduction, perhaps teh state should start supporting families who adopt, and thus keep kids out of lower income foster homes that can't give a proper enviroment. Didn't you see Free Willy? All graffiti is done by foster kids, ALL OF IT.
Well I doubt you can support the idea that gay couples are more likely to adopt than straight couples. But you have to remember that this wasn't my argument. I never agreed with it due to his underlying principle; that the state's first responsibility is to itself as opposed to its people. And even if that aspect of it was true I still don't believe that the it justifies banning anything at all.
Old 01-16-2008, 10:15 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#27  

Ballz2TheWallz
pwned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allnighte View Post
im glad he said this. i dont want to see him go any farther in the election

Only we have a lot of Christians in this country......
Old 01-17-2008, 03:20 AM Ballz2TheWallz is offline  
Reply With Quote
#28  

DivineStorm
I talk shit on the internet because in real life i'm a huge fucking pussy faggot
 
DivineStorm's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Oh I have heard of both. The Catholic church trying to run things led to the Protestant reformation and freedom from papal rule in Europe. The Roman system led to their empire being spread too thin and being unable to fund their system... much like the U.S. is getting to. You cannot have law based on morals and ideals that do not have support from the consensus of the entire population.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the Roman system" right after mentioning the Catholic church? (Holy Roman Empire or "Rome" prior to 476 AD?) Though I'm not really going to dispute any of it.

You're wrong about that last comment however. First of all a technicality; a population/people do not have to agree with a law. In order for a codification to work, it needs a government which has an authority over its subjects. Secondly it needs to be written (so no custom law) and finally, by the same authority of the government, it needs to be proclaimed as exclusive. Meaning that no other law is valid, in no other manner whatsoever. That's why Roman law existed for centuries, even after the fall of the western Roman empire. Not because it was a particular good law, but because of its authoritative status. So no, the consensus of the entire population is not required at all.

And again, law based on morals and ideas, ius naturale, is more common than you might think it is. In fact, it was triggered by the "United States" to begin with! Your Age of Reason caused the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. In both these eras people turn away from the 'evil' Roman law by Justinian. Instead, as the names of the Ages imply, they look within themselves to find the proper law.

Your constitution is the result of morals and ideas by the founding fathers.
Now you know what the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" really means.

Though I get the idea you might think this is bad, but in fact it's really not.
The constitution is undisputably well made, and quite respected by jurists everywhere.


Other prime examples of law based on morals and ideas are the French Code Civil and the German BGB. Both still mostly in effect since the Age of Enlightenment (About 200 years now!). The biggest example though, is by far the European Union and every international organization associated with it. Every single treaty is drenched with morals and ideas, ius naturale, with the rest of it being, now written, (international) custom laws.

Last edited by DivineStorm; 01-17-2008 at 04:01 AM..
Old 01-17-2008, 03:41 AM DivineStorm is offline  
Reply With Quote
#29  

Allnighte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballz2TheWallz View Post
Only we have a lot of Christians in this country......

doesn't mean we need it in government.

ron paul is christian, yet he knows religion has no place in our government.
Old 01-17-2008, 09:42 AM Allnighte is offline  
Reply With Quote
#30  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.