OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 12:04:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Homosexuality comes up frequenbtly on Orthodox forums because..
Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet. - 19 (26.8%)
Since drunkeness, adultery, theft and dishonesty have been eradicated it's the only sin left to fight - 10 (14.1%)
Apparently most Orthodox Christians have lots of gay family, friends and associates - 7 (9.9%)
Orthodox forums attract a lot of self torturing closet cases and men with doubts about thier own masculinity - 20 (28.2%)
Some folks who need Prozac aren't on it yet. - 15 (21.1%)
Total Voters: 71

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Yet Another Gay Marriage Thread  (Read 68056 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Vocatio
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 30



« Reply #855 on: November 12, 2009, 11:02:35 PM »

Vocatio, you also made references to bipolar disorder which paints a broad brush for what turns out to be a very treatable medical condition.  Just because you were taken advantage of by mentally ill people who clearly lacked insight does not mean all mentally ill take advantage of people.

Seems like you came into this thread with an axe to grind.  Find another hobby.   Angry
No axe to grind.  Just trying to participate in the discussion.  Broad Brush must be a favorite term among you guys.  Everybod paints broad brushes.  I never said "ALL".  That is what you interpreted.  PAX
Logged

\"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.\"  St. Ignatius of Antioch
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,267


WWW
« Reply #856 on: November 12, 2009, 11:29:17 PM »

No axe to grind.  Just trying to participate in the discussion.  Broad Brush must be a favorite term among you guys.

Your post was too much information.

Everybod paints broad brushes.  I never said "ALL".  That is what you interpreted.  PAX

You can be the resident rambler of this forum.   police
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,772



« Reply #857 on: November 12, 2009, 11:58:17 PM »

Vocatio

Quote
And now I want to back out of this conversation after effectively making a donkey out of myself.

Just for the record, I didn't think that at all. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I disagreed with ten words of yours that I quoted, and that still left five hundred or a thousand words that I didn't disagree with--not enough to post about it anyway. Actually the only real issue was the big block of text, and that was just because it was hard to understand what you were trying to communicate. But you're obviously forthright, and willing to put thought and time into your posts, which I have only respect for. The feeling may not be mutual in that I am an apostate and sometimes play devil's advocate. But that's ok. As long as things stay civil, there's no harm. Smiley
« Last Edit: November 12, 2009, 11:59:31 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,769


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #858 on: November 13, 2009, 01:50:57 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 01:52:41 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,772



« Reply #859 on: November 13, 2009, 02:06:16 PM »

Quote
Maybe it's just me.

Oh, I'm sure it's not just you, though I'd disagree with your position. Technically, the term for a marriage with one woman and two men is polyandry, though most people would just call it polygamy. Not sure if polyandry would also cover one woman with three or more men or not. If you're just talking about sex without marriage, terms that might be used could include polyfidelity, polyamory, menage a trois, threesome, or others, depending on the relationship dynamics and living arrangements.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 02:07:06 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #860 on: November 13, 2009, 02:31:38 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.
If its a threeway marriage between a man a woman and goat, who get's the children in the divorce?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 02:31:50 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #861 on: November 13, 2009, 03:36:52 PM »

Quote
Maybe it's just me.

Oh, I'm sure it's not just you, though I'd disagree with your position. Technically, the term for a marriage with one woman and two men is polyandry, though most people would just call it polygamy. Not sure if polyandry would also cover one woman with three or more men or not. If you're just talking about sex without marriage, terms that might be used could include polyfidelity, polyamory, menage a trois, threesome, or others, depending on the relationship dynamics and living arrangements.

Polyandry does cover one woman with three or more men, I guess a marriage with two women and two men would be both polyanderous and polygamist. But why not just the use the less confusing and more politically correct term 'plural marriage'?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #862 on: November 13, 2009, 03:39:51 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.
If its a threeway marriage between a man a woman and goat, who get's the children in the divorce?

The goat. Wink

But seriously, split the time half and half between biological parents with visitation rights for other (human) members of the relationship, unless there's a prior arrangement made upfront. It's really not all that difficult.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #863 on: November 13, 2009, 03:49:50 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.
If its a threeway marriage between a man a woman and goat, who get's the children in the divorce?

The goat. Wink

But seriously, split the time half and half between biological parents with visitation rights for other (human) members of the relationship, unless there's a prior arrangement made upfront. It's really not all that difficult.
I was totally joking.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #864 on: November 13, 2009, 03:52:19 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.
If its a threeway marriage between a man a woman and goat, who get's the children in the divorce?

The goat. Wink

But seriously, split the time half and half between biological parents with visitation rights for other (human) members of the relationship, unless there's a prior arrangement made upfront. It's really not all that difficult.

I know we're kind of kidding around, but that 'it's really not at all difficult' struck me as really sad. We shouldn't be going into any kind of marriage (or relationship) where children are involved, and thinking blithely, 'oh yes, if we split up, it really won't be all that difficult to sort things out with the children'. I imagine it will almost always be difficult from their (children's) point of view!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #865 on: November 13, 2009, 03:59:27 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.

Sounds a lot better than having the gestapo going around spying on everyone in their bedrooms with their approved list of which body parts are allowed to touch which other body parts, the allowable and mandatory variances of biographical sketches for the two participants, the acceptable state of dress relative to said biographical sketches, which position the participants must be in when certain body parts are touching.

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.

Plus, family court really isn't all that effective...we'd all be MUCH better off if these cases were settled in the civil courts, you know with due process and all.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #866 on: November 13, 2009, 04:02:16 PM »

Gic wrote:
 I draw the line with the defence of human liberty, I'd be ok with legalizing bestiality..

Really?

Okay, Let's see where we are on our list of acceptable forms of Marriage via Gic's Atheist World View.

Homosexual Marriage...  Check

Polygamy.....  Check

One Woman and several Men ( I forget the term)..Check

Humans and Animals.........  Check

One Man and one Woman....... (I will assume it's still OK)..Check

And, no regulation by the State. So if you want a divorce or need decisions on child custody or desire to pass down your property and belongs....  I dunno.. The State is "OUT of the Marriage biz"..

. This is not such a pretty picture. Maybe it's just me.
If its a threeway marriage between a man a woman and goat, who get's the children in the divorce?

The goat. Wink

But seriously, split the time half and half between biological parents with visitation rights for other (human) members of the relationship, unless there's a prior arrangement made upfront. It's really not all that difficult.

I know we're kind of kidding around, but that 'it's really not at all difficult' struck me as really sad. We shouldn't be going into any kind of marriage (or relationship) where children are involved, and thinking blithely, 'oh yes, if we split up, it really won't be all that difficult to sort things out with the children'. I imagine it will almost always be difficult from their (children's) point of view!


No, that's probably not a good premise on which to start a relationship. But, divorce is a reality, it always has been, even in the most reactionary of societies. Having a simple and easily applicable rule is a very good thing from a legal perspective.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #867 on: November 13, 2009, 05:02:26 PM »

the Orthodox Church is tonsuring female readers

Where?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,265



« Reply #868 on: November 13, 2009, 05:46:51 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #869 on: November 13, 2009, 05:51:31 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

Good point. I am quite sure that paedophiles 'naturally' feel attracted to children, but that most certainly does not mean that they should act on this feeling!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #870 on: November 13, 2009, 05:53:07 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #871 on: November 13, 2009, 05:57:01 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2009, 05:57:55 PM by Liz » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #872 on: November 13, 2009, 06:13:12 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #873 on: November 13, 2009, 06:57:24 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

I'm confused - I never mentioned human liberty.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #874 on: November 13, 2009, 07:06:59 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

I'm confused - I never mentioned human liberty.

I know, but half the last page in this thread referred to that subject.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #875 on: November 13, 2009, 07:08:40 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

I'm confused - I never mentioned human liberty.

I know, but half the last page in this thread referred to that subject.

Ah, ok. You quoted me, so I assumed you were reading too much into my post, you see.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,769


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #876 on: November 13, 2009, 07:42:45 PM »

Gic wrote:

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


I have some things to say about this topic but first I need to go take a bowl movement in my living room..

Get back to ya..
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #877 on: November 13, 2009, 07:52:05 PM »

Gic wrote:

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


I have some things to say about this topic but first I need to go take a bowl movement in my living room..

Get back to ya..

Hey man, if that's your thing, more power to you. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,772



« Reply #878 on: November 13, 2009, 07:53:04 PM »

Strange stuff happens on Friday the 13th...
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,769


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #879 on: November 13, 2009, 07:59:44 PM »

Gic wrote:

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


I have some things to say about this topic but first I need to go take a bowl movement in my living room..

Get back to ya..

Hey man, if that's your thing, more power to you. Wink

I totally get you.. If it feels good, it must be good..  Every man for himself. Wow, think of the fun ! Eat, drink and be merry...etc.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,608



WWW
« Reply #880 on: November 13, 2009, 09:49:51 PM »

Gic wrote:

Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


I have some things to say about this topic but first I need to go take a bowl movement in my living room..

Get back to ya..
A bowl movement? You're gonna move a bowl around your living room? Oh, well Shabbat Shalom..
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,265



« Reply #881 on: November 16, 2009, 11:39:56 AM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #882 on: November 16, 2009, 11:52:43 AM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,265



« Reply #883 on: November 16, 2009, 11:59:38 AM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

But again, who gets to decide what constitutes direct and immediate harm to another's life and liberty? Who makes the laws? Where do you draw the line and why?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,769


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #884 on: November 16, 2009, 12:39:54 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

GIC is fine with bestiality. It wasn't a slip or a joke. He is actually trying to defend it, LOL. His caveat is the most minimal moral postion next to no moral position at all.

I think this is a good demonstration of the bankruptcy of Atheism.  Moral codes are done on the fly. It seems to assume an Animalistic World view. Society has been through that kind of mentality before and the results were not pretty, or healthy or beneficial to the Human Race ( or Sheep).

The Christian system appears to me to be far superior and far more sophisticated no matter the sneers from the sidelines that it is based on "superstition"
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 12:40:42 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #885 on: November 16, 2009, 12:50:33 PM »


Just let people do what comes naturally...this really isn't all that difficult.


"Doing what comes naturally" may and often does involve such activities as lying, cheating, stealing, assault, rape, molestation, murder etc. Many times people are not so dedicated to the defense of doing "what comes naturally" if they have been on the receiving end of such activities.

And how, pray tell, is this comparable to mutually agreeable actions between consenting adults? Roll Eyes

Mate, I don't think the goat can consent, whatever her age!

Katherine and I (as it happens) don't agree on issues like gay marriage, but we are agreed that the justification, 'oh ... do what comes naturally' is not a good one. There should be a better reason for any relationship.

It's like deja vu all over again Wink

As the goat isn't human, there's no violation of human liberty...so why should I be bothered?

But, more generally, doing what comes naturally or what feels good is a good argument. We should not deny someone happiness for the sake of some arbitrary moral code. If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law. But if you're not hurting anyone else, then by all means, if it feels good, do it.

Who gets to decide what constitutes "hurting anyone else"? You? Or the person on the receiving end of the actions you take to "feel good"? Presumably the man who kidnapped the child and kept her in the backyard was doing what came naturally and what made him feel good. As was the man who raped and murdered women and stuffed them in the walls.
Surely you wouldn't begrudge them their pleasure, would you?

While I disagree with him on this overall, GiC does have a caveat in his paradigm: If their pursuit of happiness causes direct and immediate harm to another's life or liberty, then the law should step in, that's the purpose of law.  He is not advocating complete and total hedonism.

But again, who gets to decide what constitutes direct and immediate harm to another's life and liberty? Who makes the laws? Where do you draw the line and why?

In American society, the law is made by the various representative assemblies whose laws are checked by various court systems and the executive branches in each of their respective political entities. 

This is really basic stuff here.

Again, I do not agree with GiC, but he's being consistent with what he believes.  Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,265



« Reply #886 on: November 16, 2009, 01:17:37 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,772



« Reply #887 on: November 16, 2009, 01:28:01 PM »

Supposing that we're talking about a relationship between two adults... the adults decide. It's the same whether you're a Christian or not, the main difference is what might be agreed to as acceptable. Admittedly, the Christian couple's discussions might be a bit more mundane, something like "Can Bob go out with friends every Friday night to play darts?"  While a non-Christian couple might discuss something like "Is it okay for Sally to have a girlfriend since she's a bisexual?" In both cases the couple are going to set limits in the relationship.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #888 on: November 16, 2009, 02:25:04 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #889 on: November 16, 2009, 02:43:01 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
Why not?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,265



« Reply #890 on: November 16, 2009, 02:44:44 PM »

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,769


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #891 on: November 16, 2009, 03:06:35 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #892 on: November 16, 2009, 03:50:05 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #893 on: November 16, 2009, 03:52:22 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 03:57:15 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #894 on: November 16, 2009, 03:56:33 PM »

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #895 on: November 16, 2009, 04:01:45 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.
Why not?

For a couple reasons, one being the subjectivity of it. If the same words or actions in the same context would have no negative impact on one person and devastate another, who's emotional reaction should be the standard? Perhaps it's really the person being emotionally hurt who's at fault, after all there are other people who wouldn't be phased. You don't have a reasonable right to expect other people to make you happy, to do so is to offend their freedom; you only have the right to pursue it yourself. Which gets to the other point, any attempt to legislate to control emotional reactions will automatically violate the rights and even emotional states of others...it could restrict the free flow of information, freedom of conscience, and have fundamental negative impacts on society. It's not something that can be effectively legislated so the state has no place to even be involved.
Are counselors allowed to cause emotional harm in your world view?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #896 on: November 16, 2009, 04:02:55 PM »

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.
I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #897 on: November 16, 2009, 04:04:40 PM »

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.
I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

I have no doubt that he has no trouble at all. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,769


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #898 on: November 16, 2009, 04:05:13 PM »

Trying to argue with him in order to make him reveal apparent inconsistency simply will not happen.

Such is not my intent. My intent is to understand where he draws the line. And why. We all draw the line somewhere. There are things that each of us considers hurtful and unacceptable if not downright criminal. But if the only morality is personal morality which is different for each of us, then there is really only our own personal standard of what is hurtful or unacceptable or unreasonable or criminal. So then your standard is as good as GIC's or mine or anyone else's.

For example, what if someone considers it acceptable to have affairs - that is doing what comes naturally, that is what makes him/her happy, and it is not against the law. However it does not make his/her SO happy. The other partner considers it hurtful and disrespectful. Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable in a relationship?

I am, of course, implicitly referring the great texts in the tradition of English liberty in my positions. I did not think I had to go into great detail on the concepts of freedom, harm, and justice. I sincerely hope that everyone here has read and is familiar with Mill's essay on liberty and Paine's 'Rights of Man' and 'Age of Reason'; for without these primers, I do not see how anyone could even hold a conversation on liberty and modern government...whether you agree with the ideals or not, they're on the table and an essential element of the discussion. To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

And ??


In practice those idea's are held within the context of the Christian World View. Therefore, the "Natural Rights" of Man would not extend to legitimizing sexual divency.

Your idea's are closer to that of the Anarchists on the Left or the "Libertarians" on the Right.

I don't know what practice you're talking about, but these ideals came out of the Enlightenment, they were developed by the first deists, agnostics, and atheists of the modern world. But they did arise in the context of the Christian World View, they were largely a reaction against it; they sought to replace theism with humanism.

And my ideas are properly called 'classical liberalism'.

We have already discussed your claim that these same idea's were meant to replace the Christian World View by the founding fathers of the USA. I have already demostrated that your claim was not totally accurate and that these Men still held a Christian Viewpoint and said so forcefully.


Thomas Jefferson:


“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
« Last Edit: November 16, 2009, 04:11:19 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,190


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #899 on: November 16, 2009, 04:05:31 PM »

To give a brief summary, the line is drawn at actual physical harm to either person or property...emotional distress doesn't count.

Ah, I thought so, but I hoped not. So if we don't actually steal or murder or assault, all other behavior is ok.

Got it.

Well, I don't know what philosophical meaning is attached to 'ok', it's simply that other behaviours are outside the province of law and the state. It's not even that all actions legally allowed are 'good', but it generally is the case that they are less damaging to society than attempts to regulate them. As a key example, I would not argue that it's 'good' to use drugs, especially not on a regular basis...but our attempt to regulate them has caused high crime rates, funding for warlords and terrorists, and cost billions of dollars and what do we have to show? Availability of these drugs is at an all-time high: prohibition has failed.
I am just curious. Are you able to convince a woman to date a guy with your wold view?

I have no doubt that he has no trouble at all. 
Why?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags: homosexuality 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.191 seconds with 74 queries.