Atheism In Decline

[Martinghoul]

Quote from pspr:
Then it seems we have nothing to talk about. If you can't answer any of the questions raised above, there is no point in my trying to answer any of your questions either, martin.

Go back to your discussion with Maverick74. He seems to have more tolerance for your nonsense.

If you mean peil's questions, I have answered them.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, let me make a general point first. My approach to these things is fully libertarian. I don't see why actions performed by capable adults which don't harm other persons should be subject to regulation by some big central agency, be it the Church or the State. I don't see how any "small government" conservative could possibly call themselves that if they want this "small government" to be in the business of regulating and enforcing some code of sexual behaviour. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement".

As to your specific cases, no, I don't have a problem with the first two cases, as long as the people in question can make their decisions freely. There is an issue with incest, in that it can cause the offspring of a couple you describe, who obviously can't consent, to suffer and to need the State's care. So, in the first case, I would demand that the parents are sterile before they enter into such a union.

As to the third case, the young woman in question is either capable of making her decisions freely or she isn't. If she is, I have no problem with it. If she isn't, I do.

And no, I am not forcing anyone to accept the cases you've given as normal. All I am asking is for you to respect people's individual freedoms to make decisions, regardless of how misguided these decisions might be. You (and I, for that matter) might think that these things are not normal, but those are just opinions.

The State shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from themselves or helping the Church do that. And no, this still doesn't tell me why my opinion is less valid than pspr's, 'cause I have no idea what endgame we're supposed to be seeing here.

Very well said sir, good job expressing your opinion.

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I don't see why actions performed by capable adults which don't harm other persons should be subject to regulation by some big central agency, be it the Church or the State.

Thats the problem...you dont see how these things harm society as a whole.

If someone thinks their behavior is wrong, most people will try to refrain from doing it. If someone thinks their behavior is ok, they will do more so if it pleases them. So now lets look at HIV. Do you think HIV would be high if homosexuals thought what they were doing is wrong? Look where it all started in San Francisco where all the homosexuals congregate and tell each other that what they are doing is ok and looked what happened. If they all just stayed in the closet, there would be no AIDS today. Now letting them get married is just one way they are trying to get society to accept their ways as ok. They don't give a fuck about getting married...they just want our acceptance that their lifestyle is ok and there is nothing wrong with it.

They want you to believe that they are doing nothing to harm you. But trust me...they are harming you. You have to understand and always be on the lookout for causality that the 2nd event is a result of the first event. Too many people today just want things they think are cool. Like voting for Obama. They didnt understand what his policies were, they just wanted to vote for him cause it was cool. I also remember the same time we voted on prop 8 in CA, there was another vote for a high speed rail that was going to cost 10 billion dollars. I voted no because we were so in debt, but it passed because people thought it would be cool to have a high speed rail here.

I just wish people would see the consequences, or at least the possible consequences of their actions.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Thats the problem...you dont see how these things harm society as a whole.

If someone thinks their behavior is wrong, most people will try to refrain from doing it. If someone thinks their behavior is ok, they will do more so if it pleases them. So now lets look at HIV. Do you think HIV would be high if homosexuals thought what they were doing is wrong? Look where it all started in San Francisco where all the homosexuals congregate and tell each other that what they are doing is ok and looked what happened. If they all just stayed in the closet, there would be no AIDS today. Now letting them get married is just one way they are trying to get society to accept their ways as ok. They don't give a fuck about getting married...they just want our acceptance that their lifestyle is ok and there is nothing wrong with it.

They want you to believe that they are doing nothing to harm you. But trust me...they are harming you. You have to understand and always be on the lookout for causality that the 2nd event is a result of the first event. Too many people today just want things they think are cool. Like voting for Obama. They didnt understand what his policies were, they just wanted to vote for him cause it was cool. I also remember the same time we voted on prop 8 in CA, there was another vote for a high speed rail that was going to cost 10 billion dollars. I voted no because we were so in debt, but it passed because people thought it would be cool to have a high speed rail here.

I just wish people would see the consequences, or at least the possible consequences of their actions.

The thing is who decides what moral rules other people have to live by for the good of society. The crap we eat is much more harmful to our society than gay marriage could ever be. Do you set moral eating rules too?

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from bigarrow:

The thing is who decides what moral rules other people have to live by for the good of society. The crap we eat is much more harmful to our society than gay marriage could ever be. Do you set moral eating rules too?

In America its SUPPOSED to be the majority who decides the rules.

And people HAVE to eat to survive. People dont have to have gay marriage to survive. So its completely different.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

In America its SUPPOSED to be the majority who decides the rules.

And people HAVE to eat to survive. People dont have to have gay marriage to survive. So its completely different.

It's not SUPPOSED to be majority rule peil. The minority has protected rights. And it's not that different for you religious guys its just y'all pick and choose what abonation you're against.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from peilthetraveler:
Thats the problem...you dont see how these things harm society as a whole.

If someone thinks their behavior is wrong, most people will try to refrain from doing it. If someone thinks their behavior is ok, they will do more so if it pleases them. So now lets look at HIV. Do you think HIV would be high if homosexuals thought what they were doing is wrong? Look where it all started in San Francisco where all the homosexuals congregate and tell each other that what they are doing is ok and looked what happened. If they all just stayed in the closet, there would be no AIDS today. Now letting them get married is just one way they are trying to get society to accept their ways as ok. They don't give a fuck about getting married...they just want our acceptance that their lifestyle is ok and there is nothing wrong with it.

They want you to believe that they are doing nothing to harm you. But trust me...they are harming you. You have to understand and always be on the lookout for causality that the 2nd event is a result of the first event. Too many people today just want things they think are cool. Like voting for Obama. They didnt understand what his policies were, they just wanted to vote for him cause it was cool. I also remember the same time we voted on prop 8 in CA, there was another vote for a high speed rail that was going to cost 10 billion dollars. I voted no because we were so in debt, but it passed because people thought it would be cool to have a high speed rail here.

I just wish people would see the consequences, or at least the possible consequences of their actions.

Well, that's your personal view. To go back to my previous question, what makes your view any better than mine, for example? How come you're a better judge of the consequences than me? For me, the consequences of excessive State interference are worse than anything you have mentioned above. Finally, why do you assume that everyone arnd you is more stupid than yourself and can't see the consequences as clearly? That's pretty arrogant.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, that's your personal view. To go back to my previous question, what makes your view any better than mine, for example? How come you're a better judge of the consequences than me? For me, the consequences of excessive State interference are worse than anything you have mentioned above. Finally, why do you assume that everyone arnd you is more stupid than yourself and can't see the consequences as clearly? That's pretty arrogant.

Arrogance vs ignorance. It's better to be arrogant and right than ignorant and wrong.

Besides, if that's your argument, it couldn't be any weaker since it is irrelevant in each of our own minds.

 

[pspr]

Quote from bigarrow:

It's not SUPPOSED to be majority rule peil. The minority has protected rights. And it's not that different for you religious guys its just y'all pick and choose what abonation you're against.

No, the vast majority can change the Constitution and decide who has what rights and who doesn't. It's definitely majority rule given a large enough majority.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from pspr:

No, the vast majority can change the Constitution and decide who has what rights and who doesn't. It's definitely majority rule given a large enough majority.

Really pspr, you're just writing something so you can disagree with me now.