Prop 8 Support Defense for those of us who are LDS or like-minded in moral values

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) What? Was that supposed to make sense or was it just another one of your "This uses big words and sounds cool, so people will think I'm clever and intelligent" statements?

It's from 1984 by George Orwell:

War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength

 

[Magic Man]

It's from 1984 by George Orwell:

Is that the exact quote you posted from 1984? I'm just wondering why RS's particular phrasing, if so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is that the exact quote you posted from 1984? I'm just wondering why RS's particular phrasing, if so.

That's the exact quote.

I doubt he consciously took the phrase from 1984, I just think it's odd that he stumbled upon something very close to the slogan from the book, which was used as the mantra of a government that led its citizens like cattle.

It's a good book- if you haven't read it, you should check it out.

 

[Magic Man]

That's the exact quote.

I doubt he consciously took the phrase from 1984, I just think it's odd that he stumbled upon something very close to the slogan from the book, which was used as the mantra of a government that led its citizens like cattle.

It's a good book- if you haven't read it, you should check it out.

OK, cool. I just think he says stuff like that to sound cool most of the time. And it is funny.

That is a book I've meant to read for a long time. Animal Farm is one of my favorite books. One of these days I'll get around to 1984.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

My dear Tex, before you dismiss what I said as nonsense, you should know it is consonant with Gödel’s theorem and dynamic systems theory. The first is illustrated by an atheist who tries to show the immorality of Christianity by using the same sense of morals that are ultimately derived from Christian thought. This has been the entire thrust of my critics. The latter is illustrated in the lab by mixer: as you slowly increase the speed, a stable pattern of the material being blended emerges and remains stable until at some critical speed the pattern becomes chaotic. As the speed continues to increase, a new and unpredictable pattern suddenly and spontaneously emerges.

But none of this really matters since very few people are interested in the nature of reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My dear Tex, before you dismiss what I said as nonsense, you should know it is consonant with Gödel’s theorem and dynamic systems theory. The first is illustrated by an atheist who tries to show the immorality of Christianity by using the same sense of morals that are ultimately derived from Christian thought. This has been the entire thrust of my critics.

Regardless of their source, if morals can be supported on their own merits and not as part of some all-or-nothing Christian package, then they can be validly used against that source.

However, the term "Christian thought" covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, and it includes same-sex marriage... so I'm not really sure how your point is relevant.

The latter is illustrated in the lab by mixer: as you slowly increase the speed, a stable pattern of the material being blended emerges and remains stable until at some critical speed the pattern becomes chaotic. As the speed continues to increase, a new and unpredictable pattern suddenly and spontaneously emerges.

But none of this really matters since very few people are interested in the nature of reality.

On the contrary. I'm very interested to know the viscosity of society as well as its current Reynolds number, since you seem to be implying that you've calculated it.

 

[texan1]

My dear Tex, before you dismiss what I said as nonsense, you should know it is consonant with Gödel’s theorem and dynamic systems theory. The first is illustrated by an atheist who tries to show the immorality of Christianity by using the same sense of morals that are ultimately derived from Christian thought. This has been the entire thrust of my critics. The latter is illustrated in the lab by mixer: as you slowly increase the speed, a stable pattern of the material being blended emerges and remains stable until at some critical speed the pattern becomes chaotic. As the speed continues to increase, a new and unpredictable pattern suddenly and spontaneously emerges.

But none of this really matters since very few people are interested in the nature of reality.

Rolling Stone, I am not dismissing what you say since you haven't really said anything. You have not addressed any of my questions and seem to have no interest in addressing them, so forget it. The post above has nothing to do with my previous post addressed to you. I am not familiar with those theories, and I was not saying that Christianity is immoral. In case you forgot what my questions were:

1. provide even one example of how allowing gays to marry will negatively affect anyone and

2. Don't you think it might have been more productive for individuals and church groups to spend that time and money addressing REAL documented problems that are affecting our families and our culture, like poverty, substance abuse, and high divorce rates among heterosexuals?

If you don't want to respond to this, then fine.

 

[Magic Man]

The first is illustrated by an atheist who tries to show the immorality of Christianity by using the same sense of morals that are ultimately derived from Christian thought. This has been the entire thrust of my critics.

Mostly atheists try to illustrate the immorality of any religion based on a morality completely outside of that religion. When they do, for instance, try to show the immorality of something in Christianity by using Christian standards, it's to show the inner contradiction and hypocrisy. "How can you be so intolerant of homosexuals? I thought you were supposed to love everyone."

But none of this really matters since very few people are interested in the nature of reality.

Projecting again? There are many people interested in reality. I just wish you were one of them.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Rolling Stone, I am not dismissing what you say since you haven't really said anything. You have not addressed any of my questions and seem to have no interest in addressing them, so forget it. The post above has nothing to do with my previous post addressed to you. I am not familiar with those theories, and I was not saying that Christianity is immoral. In case you forgot what my questions were:

1. provide even one example of how allowing gays to marry will negatively affect anyone and

2. Don't you think it might have been more productive for individuals and church groups to spend that time and money addressing REAL documented problems that are affecting our families and our culture, like poverty, substance abuse, and high divorce rates among heterosexuals?

If you don't want to respond to this, then fine.

No need to. All what you say comes from within the tangled hierarchy: the values you employ arise from the value-system (society) that inform you. You're whole world is a merry-go-round.

Homosexual marriage does not have to affect any one directly in order to affect the whole over a period of time. The "REAL documented problems that are affecting our families and our culture" emerge from internal relationships and conflicts that arise from self-indulgent and undisciplined behavior as the result of "freedom" thought to be a license to act independently of the (hated) existing system.

This can be a good thing. The old must crash in order to make way for the new. The homosexual community should be very careful, however, because it may be that the only thing protecting them from retaliation may be the very value-system against which they commit acts of violence and hate.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It just occurred to me that another thing that should be considered is that your approach is extremely dualistic in that its concern is with the individual while mine is more holistic, concerned with the whole.

 

[Magic Man]

It just occurred to me that another thing that should be considered is that your approach is extremely dualistic in that its concern is with the individual while mine is more holistic, concerned with the whole.

Again, (since you've avoided it many times up till now) what do you see happening as a result of same-sex marriage? How do you see it negatively affecting the whole?

Keep in mind that society is already fairly accepting of homosexuality in general, and even most of those opposing same-sex marriage are content to allow homosexuals live their lives the way they want to aside from marriage. So, then you have to explain why allowing the marriages on top of accepting the lifestyle in general is bad.

 

[texan1]

It just occurred to me that another thing that should be considered is that your approach is extremely dualistic in that its concern is with the individual while mine is more holistic, concerned with the whole.

Then I think you may have misunderstood my intent. I am concerned about the whole. I'm just interested in your individual opinion on why sanctioning gay marriage will be a detriment to the whole of society now or in the future. That is a strong claim, so I was just hoping you could back it up with an example of just what the negative impact(s) would be on the whole. So far, as I understand it your answer is "I don't know, but I am certain there will be." That seems like a weak argument to me.

 

[Draka]

Alright, let's just say this. This is absurd. Rolling Stone doesn't answer any questions, he just talks in circles. He has been making veiled insults and throwing around ridiculous claims all in order to try to make his case...of which he has none. He will, inevidently, respond to this post with more veiled insults, talking down to me and basically accuse me of being the uninformed one trapped in...survey says...a "tangled heirarchy"!! (what makes me think he just heard that somewhere and has fallen in love with the sound of it?)

He has no real response to any of the questions posed to him. He can't answer them. He won't answer them. So why don't we just stop bothering to ask and accept he doesn't seem to have a real clue as to why his stance is what it is? :areyoucra

 

[Magic Man]

Alright, let's just say this. This is absurd. Rolling Stone doesn't answer any questions, he just talks in circles. He has been making veiled insults and throwing around ridiculous claims all in order to try to make his case...of which he has none. He will, inevidently, respond to this post with more veiled insults, talking down to me and basically accuse me of being the uninformed one trapped in...survey says...a "tangled heirarchy"!! (what makes me think he just heard that somewhere and has fallen in love with the sound of it?)

He has no real response to any of the questions posed to him. He can't answer them. He won't answer them. So why don't we just stop bothering to ask and accept he doesn't seem to have a real clue as to why his stance is what it is? :areyoucra

Sounds good to me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Can some one who is opposed of gay marriage give me some clear friggin' reasons how, by allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, is a problem? Please don't give me this religion crap either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alright, let's just say this. This is absurd. Rolling Stone doesn't answer any questions, he just talks in circles. He has been making veiled insults and throwing around ridiculous claims all in order to try to make his case...of which he has none. He will, inevidently, respond to this post with more veiled insults, talking down to me and basically accuse me of being the uninformed one trapped in...survey says...a "tangled heirarchy"!! (what makes me think he just heard that somewhere and has fallen in love with the sound of it?)

He has no real response to any of the questions posed to him. He can't answer them. He won't answer them. So why don't we just stop bothering to ask and accept he doesn't seem to have a real clue as to why his stance is what it is? :areyoucra

Fair enough.

Frankly, I don't see any fundamental difference between his "tangled heirarchy" (i.e. inheritance of traits with change over time), which he declares to be bad and evolution (i.e. inheritance of traits with change over time), which he (albeit fallaciously) declares to be good.

 

[Luminous]

Huh? The head of something is generally the greatest and most powerful representative of that something. So, according to you, the Pope has no right to say he represents Catholics? That's pretty preposterous.

The Pope can only represent himself. if others want to see him as representing all of Catholisism they can go ahead and do that. they are wrong. If catholics want to follow the Pope where ever he goes they can be as the children taken by the piper.:slap::angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2:

 

[Luminous]

Can some one who is opposed of gay marriage give me some clear friggin' reasons how, by allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, is a problem? Please don't give me this religion crap either.

infact, can anyone find scripture that even mentions gays?

 

[turk179]

I also use the terms "unintended consequences," implying unknown, and "long term," implying generations. However, I don't expect someone living in an age of instant anything to understand.

Of course you can't see the paradox. Like Draka above, you are stuck in a "tangled hierarchy," like one hand drawing the other. The "severe consequences" are self-referring. You want to "redraw" society's values according to your values which are drawn by society. You're like an atheist criticizing the Christian values from which his values are ultimately derived. (Gawd, how many times have I seen that in RF?) It's an absurd position to be in.

Edit: And yes, I am unconcerned with the kind of negative consequences you talk about. There's nothing new there.

• Freedom as license is the precursor to abject slavery.
• Egalitarianism is a pipe dream.
• Not all relationships are equal.
• Government is not obligated to protect lifestyle.
• Society has enough problems. Why should it be weighted down by the legal, political, and social ramifications of unnecessary change, change that is unnecessary and may even be detrimental to real social progress? (Occam's razor)
• Should an undisciplined, self-absorbed and vicious minority be allowed to dictate society's standards?

In a way, I hope activists get their way. It might take a few generations before the unforeseen consequences come to fruition, but I am confident that people will regret forgetting the adage "be careful what you wish for."

I don't think I have ever seen anyone say "I don't know" in that many words before.

 

[Luminous]

It just occurred to me that another thing that should be considered is that your approach is extremely dualistic in that its concern is with the individual while mine is more holistic, concerned with the whole.

Good for you, ya Commi!