- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
keep living your dream,:clap:
translation: no you dont, you got nothing as usual, thanks we knew that
keep living your dream,:clap:
to each his own but i like kicking them when they are down and then forcing them to dig their whole deeper. then usually by that time its a group beat down.
Either way, history is written by the winners and the losers arguments are never really evaluated. Just like the pro segregation groups they will be simply white washed as the losers in this struggle.
You and i both know reality muster move forward. Leaving behind such stillness.
no I only stated to you what your comments reminded me of......that much is very clear.....good day to you.
actually, I found it humorous because when I read from you.. what I quoted.
I reminds me of lost in space, "revolt of the androids"....... "crush, kill, destroy"
By your argument, the Nazis were moral people; they were taught morals in school and kept them.
You said that we should teach morals in school; I'm showing how that is a meaningless statement. There is no moral code that everyone agrees on; someone, typically the majority, will be left with the short end of the stick, when we try to teach it as a standard.That wasn't my argument. Not even close.
Take the slippery slope. This is 100% true. Homosexual marriage wasn't accepted until very recently. What is to stop bestiality? What is to stop incest? Nothing.
the princess and the pea..... I am the pea..... to you princess
The poll results here are not too different from the similarly unrealistic dualistic either-or poll for the nation at large regarding simplistic favor of the oxymoronic application of "marriage" to same-sex relevant relationships (53%) and opposition to that ludicrously oxymoronic application (47%).
Though these two polls do illustrate the obvious deadlock, unrealistic-choice dualistic either-or polls on this matter do not tell the true relevant story.
This thread ( http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/172461-great-majority-opposes-word-marriage-ss-couples.html#post1062303771 ), and in most recent particular, this post in that thread ( http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/172461-great-majority-opposes-word-marriage-ss-couples-21.html#post1062318413 ), more realistically present where America is truly at on the issue.
70% support government and private enterprise recognition of same-sex relevant relationships, but 63% do not support recognition under the oxymoronic term "marriage".
Thus, with respect to the question posed in this thread, gay "marriage" should rightly be stopped, as it is not a rights issue and the considerable majority support for recognition exists but this considerable majority only exists under the condition that recognition occur under an appropriate term other than "marriage", like, for instance, "homarriage".
And, considering that's what America really wants, gay activists need to let go of the rabble-rousing and ludicrous gay "marriage" campaign and more intelligently support their bottom-line goal of recognition, and thus effort should be dropped on getting state constitutions changed to support the oxymoronic gay "marriage", and effort should be placed both on getting state constitutions changed to disallow it as well as create statutes in all 50 states called "homarriage" (or whatever term other than "marriage" is descriptively relevant).
This is the right thing to do, for every reason.
What I said was that an education that lacked any value judgments or moral standards was worthless, particularly in certain areas. Since I gave clear and specific examples of what I was talking about the first time, I don't plan to repeat myself here.You said that we should teach morals in school; I'm showing how that is a meaningless statement. There is no moral code that everyone agrees on; someone, typically the majority, will be left with the short end of the stick, when we try to teach it as a standard.
When you say "teaching tolerance" you are essentially advocating the teaching of a particular moral virtue--or at least what you consider to be one. So that sort of defeats your own argument put forward in the first paragraph.In the context of teaching tolerance towards homosexuality, it's truly baffling that anyone can find that immoral; they're not teaching people to do it, or even bringing it up as a moral good, they're just teaching that it exists and exploring the differences in our society. It's as neutral as it gets. Specifically ignoring the topic is De Facto bigotry, when we live a society that still has rampant anti-homosexual tendencies. It's negligence, no different than bigotry itself.
What I said was that an education that lacked any value judgments or moral standards was worthless, particularly in certain areas. Since I gave clear and specific examples of what I was talking about the first time, I don't plan to repeat myself here.
When you say "teaching tolerance" you are essentially advocating the teaching of a particular moral virtue--or at least what you consider to be one. So that sort of defeats your own argument put forward in the first paragraph.
Tolerance is a fundamental pillar of our society. It is an absolutely essential element required for millions of people to live together in peace. This absolutely should be taught in schools.
Kids should learn that they should be responsible for themselves, and that what others do, be they homosexuals, heterosexuals, christians, atheists, blacks, whites, etc., is none of their business, as every person has an equal right to our society and of their own way of life.
....Seriously...? You're comparing animal rape to consenting adults?
Don't you pretend to be a small government constitutionalist in most threads? Did you just decide to throw that to the wind when it comes to discriminating against homosexuals?
This is your rebuttal to Agent J? Pages and pages of blubbering nonsense? You can't find a way to string the words together explaining why you oppose equal rights?
While that manner of education works well when you are trying to pry in a behavior like homosexuality where the goal is to eliminate any moral or value judgments, it is a horrible to teach history for example. Eliminate morals and values from the conversation and what does the teaching of WWII look like? Cant say the Nazis were bad and we were good because that is a value judgment. Is tyranny a good or bad way of governing? Cant say, that would be a value judgment. The whole issue of human rights would be left untaught since rights are a moral concept in themselves. Or if you were to teach them, countrys that defend rights, like the US, and countrys that suppress them, like North Korea, would have to be viewed in an equal light without any "moral or value judgments" applied. Sorry, but that is not an education.
I could be wrong, but what I think Ernst was getting at is that when you have a school teach that homosexuality is normal, moral behavior, the school is making an argument that runs counter to the moral and value judgments that parents have imparted upon their children. So what you wind up with is a government school, to which most children are forced to go, imparting values that run counter to the values of the people who are forced to attend. The idea that homosexuality is even mentioned in public school is the result of a political agenda, thus a value judgment. So he is right in that respect.
I said teaching a standard moral code is worthless, since it will always contradict the moral codes of the majority; it will not contradict with the majority of the morals that the majority believes. Everyone will have one or two points that they disagree with; the problem is that's all that's needed to spark controversy. We've probably filled up several textbooks worth of debate on this one conflicting moral alone.When you say "teaching tolerance" you are essentially advocating the teaching of a particular moral virtue--or at least what you consider to be one. So that sort of defeats your own argument put forward in the first paragraph.
What does bestiality have to do with homosexuality? Why do you feel the need to distract from the question at hand by bringing up things that aren't related?
Is it perhaps that you have no real reason for supporting discrimination against homosexuality accept through your own make believe that somehow allowing homosexuals to be d equal will magically undo all morals? Why didn't you just go all the way to murder.
One time not that long ago same sex marriage was not legal. what is to stop murder from being legalized.
Homosexuality isn't bestiality, murder, incest, theft, child molestation, arson, or any other sort of action that isn't homosexuality. So instead of pretending that it is some proverbial flood gate being open that you have to throw absurd arguments at to close, stop being a phony martyr and stop with the phony arguments.
Explain why homosexuality should not be legally accepted keeping in mind that the bill of rights clearly states that the state shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.
Er murder is legal?1st Amendment doesn't mean there can't be a law related to a religion. Otherwise murder would be illegal. Nice try though.
1st Amendment doesn't mean there can't be a law related to a religion. Otherwise murder would be illegal. Nice try though.
Er murder is legal?
I suspect he mistyped. and meant legal. It's STILL a failed argument. Laws against murder are based on rights violations, not religion.
Er murder is legal?
Huh? This post doesn't make any sense.
Typo, see edit.
You don't really post any valid arguments, so it's not that big of a stretch that you don't understand this discussion.
You have failed to prove your case in every debate you have had with me. Me thinks it's due to your unwillingness to know when you are beaten.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?