Mr Spinkles
Mr
So you're saying no, it would not change anything if skin color was a behavioral trait. There goes your "behavioral trait" argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS letter on same-sex marriage
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
madhatter85
Transhumanist
madhatter85
Transhumanist
:no:
No I am saying skin color is not a behavioral trait therefore it cannot be compared. even hypothetically, because it is not even remotely possible.
Your argument has more in common with this picture below:
happyhummingbird
Member
And trampling religious freedoms in the process.
How is two gay men or lesbian women getting married trampling your religious freedom? Oh wait, it isn't.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
First you dodged the question. Then you said your answer was "no". Now you're back to dodging the question again.madhatter said:
I don't mean to be rude, but I see no evidence you are interested in a serious, candid discussion. So I'll leave the last word to you and let our friends judge for themselves.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
I do wonder how many people here actually think that any if this banter here matters.
I got on here again because I was bored a week ago (in between tasks at work) and it's been fun. However, I'm surprised how many people think what happens on this forum matters; how many people find self-justification here.
It doesn't take an idiot to see that nothing productive really comes of any threads like these, on any topic. Do you really expect to change people's minds here? To make a difference?
Also if you really consider these folks your friends, I suggest you get out more.
happyhummingbird
Member
You would be surprised, besides this place has more then just banter. It helps to inform people who may be wishy-washy about their faith and introduce them to others.
Irony.
It doesn't take an idiot? Then why the hell do you participate? For fun? Did you know debates, informing and dialoguing is the main source for people changing their minds?
Commoner
Headache
Wow, the insecurities you must have...
... says the pot to the kettle?
I mainly do it for the lurkers, myself. I'm rapidly losing hope that I'll ever change your mind (especially when you keep ignoring my posts), but I do realize that this thread is read by people whose opinions can be swayed.
I've had my mind changed on various issues here, so I know it can happen.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
Yes, I do this for fun. is that a bad thing?
All people are doing here is informing others of their lack of tact and ability to call people names
madhatter85
Transhumanist
I don't find self-justification here at all. What's this about kettles and pots?
And you won't change my mind until you can come up with a good enough reason. I have not seen any compelling arguments for same-sex marriage to be legalized. your opinions, just as mine, are not compelling arguments because opinions are subjective. I have my ideas and opinions. Do you really think some random person on a random forum with no name and no face is going to change mine or anyone's mind?
It is interesting to see how easily people are swayed by the opinions of others rather than truth.
Last edited:
It's unfortunate that you come to the table having already decided this.
For me, it's not about my judgement of the poster as a person. You don't need to trust "some random person on a random forum with no name and no face" to be open to hearing about new ideas and points of view you hadn't previously considered. Maybe there's merit to them; maybe they're complete garbage... but you won't know until you've honestly considered them.
Do you seriously never try to find evidence to test your beliefs and opinions? Don't you even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong on occasion?
It's not a matter of blindly accepting the opinions of others; it's a matter of being willing to re-evaluate one's position when presented with new facts and different perspectives on the issue. It's a matter of having an open mind.It is interesting to see how easily people are swayed by the opinions of others rather than truth.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
You're right, these conversations aren't necessarily going to change the world, but at the very least they can be fun and intellectually stimulating. OTOH when you refuse to answer simple questions it's like playing chess with a kid who won't follow the rules when he's losing, that's fine with me, I just prefer to get up and move to the next table and play with someone who enjoys a good discussion because those discussions are actually fun!
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I find it odd that people spend their time doing something they themselves think is worthless.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So thousands of people are denied a basic human right, and the poor victims are the religions that insist on continuing to do so.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
You're right, these conversations aren't necessarily going to change the world, but at the very least they can be fun and intellectually stimulating. OTOH when you refuse to answer simple questions it's like playing chess with a kid who won't follow the rules when he's losing, that's fine with me, I just prefer to get up and move to the next table and play with someone who enjoys a good discussion because those discussions are actually fun!
I did answer your question. I showed you that it is illogical to compare the two because they are completely different, even hypothetically.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
I should have rephrased, You won't change my mind until you can come up with a good enough reason. I have not seen any compelling arguments for same-sex marriage to be legalized.
[/quote]EDIT: I have edited my post to reflect that
You didn't "show us", you made an assertion... an assertion that is itself illogical, as I explained in this post you conveniently passed over.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
*sigh* There's a small possibility you might be genuinely confused instead of merely disingenuous, so I will give it one more try: In a hypothetical, the conditions are assumed to be true. They are assumed to be true even if they are not actually true, in the real world. That's why it's called a "hypothetical" situation and not a "real-life" situation. If the assumed conditions of the hypothetical are different from the real world, that does not make the hypothetical situation "illogical". That makes it a hypothetical situation. It is, in fact, possible to answer hypothetical questions. I have seen people do it. The only obstacle is your willingness to do so.
I'm asking you to assume/pretend/imagine that people can choose their skin color. Anyone has the ability to close their eyes and imagine this hypothetical situation, except those who are unwilling to do it. For example, you could imagine everyone gets a magical device and they can pick "African" or "Chinese" or whatever as their ethnicity. You could imagine that Michael Jackson clicked a button, instead of going through surgeries and treatments. Perhaps one day technology will actually progress to this point. Perhaps it never will. Again, I stress that there is nothing "illogical" about imagining this situation, or considering this possible situation. If this imagined world seems different from the real world, that is because it is not the real world, but a hypothetical world we are considering, for the sake of argument.
So, consider this hypothetical situation. Would the fact that race is a "behavioral trait" in this hypothetical situation change anything? In other words, in this hypothetical case, would it be okay to send blacks to the back of the bus?
madhatter85
Transhumanist
I apologize i did not read that post (there are a lot on this thread and I come in for an hour or so, and don't get back here for another day.) so please bare with me.
Your assertions are still rooted in the idea that people who identify as "gay" are a "people" just because someone is a demographic based on any sort of preference does not mean that they should get special privileges.
Take for instance smokers, some people love smoking, they can't imagine quitting because they don't care about any possible ramifications (and not all people who smoke get cancer but, i digress). Yet, they are confined to smoke only in designated areas and are not allowed to smoke in certain places because, it offends people(they don't like the smell or smoke or whatever). This is based on a behavior and a preference.
Sexuality is much the same, it is behavior and preference. it does not mean that we are required to change the definition of marriage to be "whatever you feel like" when marriage was instituted in all cultures as a way to bear and raise children.
If you define marriage outside of that boundary (the reason it was instituted in the first place) then you have to also aknowlege other forms of "marriage" marriage to robots or poly-amorous relationships, marriage to primates or any animal that has the presence of mind to make cognitive decisions. You will be setting a precedent under the guise of "rights" when in reality they already have the same rights. just because their preference doesn't align with the law doesn't mean their rights are diminished.