Debate Mark III

[sandmanccl]

What can I say? I'm extremely opinionated, but I've also spent a lot of time formulating my opinions.

I don't recall saying anything specifically in this thread about age other than the one comment about how you were telling someone from outside the country they couldn't vote and I was simply pointing out you couldn't either, not yet. I know I've mentioned it elsewhere but for other reasons. My mistake if I'm lording it over people without realizing it.

There is still a pretty significant age difference, though. I turn 23 in a month, so I'm a fair bit older than the average person I've seen come here. We're talking kids between 15 and 17, for the most part. That's a good 5 to 8 years difference. I've seen an AWFUL lot since I was 15 and feel like a completely different person for what I've been through.

I've squandered my scholarship to college, been fired from at least 3 jobs, was laid off during this current economic struggle the country is facing and still can't find real solid work, had a girl I was going to propose to tell me to take a hike the week before and then married another man within the next 6 months (she didn't even know him until the summer after, fyi), had a woman I care very deeply for tell me she won't even let me talk to her anymore because she realizes we have the potential for love but because she's got a heart condition which means she won't live 10 years she won't let things just be. I've lost one of my closest cousins to speed and meth. A buddy from high school was murdered by two gun shots to the back of the head about 3 years ago. To top it off, I'm a pathetic husk of a person compared to my brothers, my older two already being married at my age with relatively successful careers, and my younger brother has more money in the bank than I've probably ever had my entire life.

What I'm getting at, is that an awful lot changes in 5 years. I've always been sure of my beliefs, and they've been tested and yet still remain as strong as ever if not more so.

I guess I do have a tendency to talk down to people when I feel like they haven't given something as much thought as I know I have. I guess it's all I've really had my whole life. It got me through being next to friendless the first 16 years of my life, and so it's really hard to shut off the analytical part of my brain.

I'm sorry if the matter-of-fact way I speak bothers you. I'll try to keep it under control.

[Cynthia]

What can I say? I'm extremely opinionated, but I've also spent a lot of time formulating my opinions.

I don't recall saying anything specifically in this thread about age other than the one comment about how you were telling someone from outside the country they couldn't vote and I was simply pointing out you couldn't either, not yet. I know I've mentioned it elsewhere but for other reasons. My mistake if I'm lording it over people without realizing it.

There is still a pretty significant age difference, though. I turn 23 in a month, so I'm a fair bit older than the average person I've seen come here. We're talking kids between 15 and 17, for the most part. That's a good 5 to 8 years difference. I've seen an AWFUL lot since I was 15 and feel like a completely different person for what I've been through.

I've squandered my scholarship to college, been fired from at least 3 jobs, was laid off during this current economic struggle the country is facing and still can't find real solid work, had a girl I was going to propose to tell me to take a hike the week before and then married another man within the next 6 months (she didn't even know him until the summer after, fyi), had a woman I care very deeply for tell me she won't even let me talk to her anymore because she realizes we have the potential for love but because she's got a heart condition which means she won't live 10 years she won't let things just be. I've lost one of my closest cousins to speed and meth. A buddy from high school was murdered by two gun shots to the back of the head about 3 years ago. To top it off, I'm a pathetic husk of a person compared to my brothers, my older two already being married at my age with relatively successful careers, and my younger brother has more money in the bank than I've probably ever had my entire life.

What I'm getting at, is that an awful lot changes in 5 years. I've always been sure of my beliefs, and they've been tested and yet still remain as strong as ever if not more so.

I guess I do have a tendency to talk down to people when I feel like they haven't given something as much thought as I know I have. I guess it's all I've really had my whole life. It got me through being next to friendless the first 16 years of my life, and so it's really hard to shut off the analytical part of my brain.

I'm sorry if the matter-of-fact way I speak bothers you. I'll try to keep it under control.

It doesn't bother me so much, I'm just saying it does make it harder for people to take you seriously because they feel like you aren't listening merely because you're older and that automatically makes you right.

And really 5 years isn't a big difference, and there are people who have had it a lot harder than yourself. My mother was forced to start growing up at 14.

You don't truly know a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes, so you can't say for sure that you have a significant knowledge over everyone here.

Also you never answered my question and Meteor's question.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Cynthia

[YokaiKnight]

It doesn't bother me so much, I'm just saying it does make it harder for people to take you seriously because they feel like you aren't listening merely because you're older and that automatically makes you right.

His style doesn't make it any harder for me to take him seriously. I wouldn't speak for everyone like you just did.

[sandmanccl]

5 years isn't a big difference between 25 and 30, but it's a huge difference between 17 and 22. All I can say is that I remember making the exact same arguments you are years ago and things have completely turned on their heals with even just the slightest bit of real life experience.

As for how allowing gay marriage affects me, it will force me to acknowledge their union on the same par of the holiest of unions, that between man and woman. It demeans something I value and hope for myself some day, in my eyes.

[Cynthia]

5 years isn't a big difference between 25 and 30, but it's a huge difference between 17 and 22. All I can say is that I remember making the exact same arguments you are years ago and things have completely turned on their heals with even just the slightest bit of real life experience.

As for how allowing gay marriage affects me, it will force me to acknowledge their union on the same par of the holiest of unions, that between man and woman. It demeans something I value and hope for myself some day, in my eyes.

Well in all respect, you are not me, so the argument and conditions are not the same. That's all I have to say on that matter, and once again you're speaking over me...

On your answer I have to say you didn't really state a true reason, you just stated it demeans Marriage, when you didn't say how. Is there a non-religious way of explaining how it demeans marriage, as religion does not dictate what is right and wrong, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to sway the government.

I actually have considered marrying someone of the same gender, and I doubt to the highest degree that them being the same gender as I means that our relationship will be unsuccessful, or hinder my ability to live life to its fullest. It will not stop me from being a productive member of society, it will not stop me from paying taxes, it will not encourage me to break the law, so I fail to see besides in the religious eye, which should not be considered in the political spectrum, why it is demeaning. That is actually a rather discriminatory statement actually.

The government does not take the Pagan faith into consideration, and rarely the Muslim faith, and I have never seen them take the Hindu faith into consideration, I could be wrong about that one, but I'm certain it's rare.

Now if the government doesn't take all of those into consideration, why do Christians get taken into consideration? How fair is that? I actually wish Barrack Obama WAS Muslim in a way, so if he won the election the amount of Christian dominance in the government would change. It's pretty sad that someone like me, who people would consider, intelligent, able of making good decision, and caring, and of course capable of contributing to society, can not get married because some religion I do not even follow can not. Why must I be limited? What crime have I committed? Who am I hurting?

Edited November 1, 2008 by Cynthia

[sandmanccl]

*slaps own face* If you want to make a problem out of nothing, you're displaying the right attitude. I never said I was you, but I don't see how that changes the fact I made arguments along the very same lines you were but changed because my beliefs shifted in another direction.

On your answer I have to say you didn't really state a true reason, you just stated it demeans Marriage, when you didn't say how. Is there a non-religious way of explaining how it demeans marriage, as religion does not dictate what is right and wrong, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to sway the government.

Uh.

If religion shouldn't be allowed to sway the government, a body that is ruled by the people, of whom which the majority of Christian or Jewish (or any other myriad of religions), then what the hell is allowed to sway the government?

Seperation of church and state does not mean religious values cannot be upheld within the confines of the law. Our nation was founded on religious values, and religious values are the reason you're even allowed to speak your mind against the government legally in the first place.

Separation of church and state means that the government can't become entangled with the organization of any religion, nothing more, nothing less. It's to prevent a would-be Charlemagne from declaring a national religion everyone must follow.

If your opinions are allowed to sway government, then why the fuck can't mine? Because I belong to a religion that shares my views? Fuck that. Pardon my language, but if you guys have payed attention to what makes me burn most, it's my opinions becoming invalid for some bullshit reason.

I honestly don't care what your views on marriage is! That's the whole point! I don't care what you think it means, because it doesn't mean that to me and I do not accept your opinion of it, nor do I think you have the right to forcefully change my opinion of it. Do what you want and I won't care, but the moment you come in and tell me I have to change my views, views that have been shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of mankind, I will fight you.

I don't see how it's discrimination to allow gay people a union along the same lines of marriage without calling it marriage.

[YokaiKnight]

I don't see how it's discrimination to allow gay people a union along the same lines of marriage without calling it marriage.

Because we've proven that "separate but equal" does not turn out equal.

[canas is back]

Very good point, but the necessary and proper clause pretty much covers that: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Constitution omits =/= Constitution forbids. The Bill of Rights doesn't give the government power, it tells it what power it can't have.

I get the same impression that he's 40, but since he's not condescending I see no problem with it. Why not speak confidently about your beliefs, if you feel confidently as well? "Stand firm for what you believe in, until and unless logic and experience proves you wrong."

please I have heard this one before, but it means it only says that it can do anything to the foregoing powers IE anything in the constitution

[YokaiKnight]

please I have heard this one before, but it means it only says that it can do anything to the foregoing powers IE anything in the constitution

The foregoing powers means the rest of A1S8, which includes "provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." Blanket clause is blanket.

But we're both straying from the point, which was a debate over my comment that "If Federal law grants you a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it violates the Constitution." Giving a previously unmentioned right to the people does not violate the Constitution, because the Constitution reserves those rights to the people in, you guessed it, Amendment X.

EDIT: This sounds a lot like the comment you made about the tenth amendment. Way to get me to argue against myself. XD

Edited November 2, 2008 by YokaiKnight

[canas is back]

EDIT: This sounds a lot like the comment you made about the tenth amendment. Way to get me to argue against myself. XD

hey at least you admit it, some people I know will argue certain things and turn right back at me and say "oh you can't do that you are religous"

[Leonri]

Seperation of church and state does not mean religious values cannot be upheld within the confines of the law. Our nation was founded on religious values, and religious values are the reason you're even allowed to speak your mind against the government legally in the first place.

Your nation was actually not founded on religious values. A number of the founding fathers were atheists and agnostics, and all agreed religon had no place in running a country.

Religon upholds free speach? Hardly. It's blasphemy to speak against God. That's not free speach at all.

If religion shouldn't be allowed to sway the government, a body that is ruled by the people, of whom which the majority of Christian or Jewish (or any other myriad of religions), then what the hell is allowed to sway the government?

The government should listen to facts. Religon is inherently irrational. I don't care if you believe that God hates gays, but if you want the government to punish them because of what a man in the sky says, well that unacceptable. If the majority believes the sky is green, should the government decree that children must be taught this in school?

[Defeatist Elitist]

Your nation was actually not founded on religious values. A number of the founding fathers were atheists and agnostics, and all agreed religon had no place in running a country.

Religon upholds free speach? Hardly. It's blasphemy to speak against God. That's not free speach at all.

The government should listen to facts. Religon is inherently irrational. I don't care if you believe that God hates gays, but if you want the government to punish them because of what a man in the sky says, well that unacceptable. If the majority believes the sky is green, should the government decree that children must be taught this in school?

This post is pretty good here, I'd say...

If you don't want gays to marry, well, tough luck buddy. It has no real affect on you.

I would expand, but...

Besides, the most hilarious thing about this is that even including Religion, Christianity should SUPPORT Homosexuals. God doesn't, contrary to popular belief "hate fags". If he did, he'd be an awful douche. I mean, he created them, right? Of course, he still has to explain away why he intentionally and knowingly created a flawed race, knowing that he would have to kill many of them, force them to suffer endlessly, condemn many of them to eternal damnation, and basically be a sadistic prick, but that's for another day.

[canas is back]

This post is pretty good here, I'd say...

If you don't want gays to marry, well, tough luck buddy. It has no real affect on you.

I would expand, but...

Besides, the most hilarious thing about this is that even including Religion, Christianity should SUPPORT Homosexuals. God doesn't, contrary to popular belief "hate fags". If he did, he'd be an awful douche. I mean, he created them, right? Of course, he still has to explain away why he intentionally and knowingly created a flawed race, knowing that he would have to kill many of them, force them to suffer endlessly, condemn many of them to eternal damnation, and basically be a sadistic prick, but that's for another day.

eternal yes damnation not in the classical sense, damnation only means a halting, especially in my church, where all but a few end up gaining some reward, I'll tell you guys about it if you want to hear.

[Defeatist Elitist]

eternal yes damnation not in the classical sense, damnation only means a halting, especially in my church, where all but a few end up gaining some reward, I'll tell you guys about it if you want to hear.

No thanks, I actually know a lot more about Mormons than I or any other person should know. :P

[Meteor]

He still has to explain away why He intentionally and knowingly created a flawed race...

Why does that need an explanation? It's not God's obligation to justify himself.

On top of that, we're not even sure if homosexuality is a trait or a choice.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Why does that need an explanation? It's not God's obligation to justify himself.

On top of that, we're not even sure if homosexuality is a trait or a choice.

Actually, it's been proven to be a trait in almost every circumstance. In rare occasions, certain events in a persons life, often involving shock, can cause someone to exhibit homosexual traits, but the majority of homosexuals are entirely biological.

And I was saying that as a joke really. God will have to prove to me that he exists before he has to justify anything. :P

[Meteor]

What constitutes proof? How is it tested? Oral witness is usually horribly inaccurate. At the end of the day, I'm not sure I even care. Choice or otherwise, I have no problem just letting it be.

[Defeatist Elitist]

What constitutes proof? How is it tested? Oral witness is usually horribly inaccurate. At the end of the day, I'm not sure I even care. Choice or otherwise, I have no problem just letting it be.

Scientific proof. Like studies. Experiments. You know, that stuff. For example, many homosexuals share much of the same neural structure and brain makeup as people of the opposite gender.

[Meteor]

If that's the case, could children be tested for their sexual preference?

[Defeatist Elitist]

If that's the case, could children be tested for their sexual preference?

Conceivably, yes. I'm not sure how precise and exact we are yet, but it is feasible.

[YokaiKnight]

For the record, if there is a sexual orientation "switch" in the human genetic code, no one's found it yet. This is NOT to say that orientation is developed by nurture as opposed to nature, however.

[sandmanccl]

Your nation was actually not founded on religious values. A number of the founding fathers were atheists and agnostics, and all agreed religon had no place in running a country.

Where did you read that? Because I've only ever heard the opposite. Even those that didn't follow mainstream religions still believed in "Providence", or some sort of higher power. It greatly affected their decisions and saying otherwise is false. You can still be a religious person even if you're distrustful of organized religion.

Besides, the colonies started long before "the founding fathers" even arrived here. The vast majority of the colonies were founded as religious asylums from oppression in England. Maryland and Pennsylvania being two key examples. To say that the rights the people who founded each colony didn't influence the founding fathers is absurd. Go back and take a serious history class, k?

Religon upholds free speach? Hardly. It's blasphemy to speak against God. That's not free speach at all.

The government should listen to facts. Religon is inherently irrational. I don't care if you believe that God hates gays, but if you want the government to punish them because of what a man in the sky says, well that unacceptable. If the majority believes the sky is green, should the government decree that children must be taught this in school?

"Religion" and "Speech", by the way.

*ahem* now on to my reply:

OH MAN I MET SOME INTOLERANT PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW A RELIGION IN MY LIFE, THEREFORE RELIGION IS EVIL AND ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS IT IS A BAD PERSON.

That's what your argument sounds like. God does not hate gays. That's nowhere in the Bible. Saying God hates anyone is ridiculous and shows you're uneducated. Saying he's some giant floating man in the sky also shows you're uneducated because that's not a view anyone in any major organized religion believes. Saying it's inherently irrational also shows you're uneducated, especially if you are a scientist because the vast majority of major scientific breakthroughs in the past, oh, 3 centuries all came from religious men. Ever heard of Albert Einstein? How about the person commonly accepted as the most intelligent living man on earth today, Stephen Hawking? Let's go back in time a bit. Galileo believed in God (ironic his works were shunned like they were). How about Sir Isaac Newton, the genius behind almost all advanced math even in today's society?

I consider myself a highly rational person, and I believe in a higher power. In fact, my convictions on religion are dictated by my rational side because my impulsive emotional side wants me to abandon it. Stop spouting nonsense. It doesn't become you.

And learn to spell. Most browsers have a spell-checker built in to it nowadays.

[Leonri]

Where did you read that? Because I've only ever heard the opposite. Even those that didn't follow mainstream religions still believed in "Providence", or some sort of higher power. It greatly affected their decisions and saying otherwise is false. You can still be a religious person even if you're distrustful of organized religion.

Besides, the colonies started long before "the founding fathers" even arrived here. The vast majority of the colonies were founded as religious asylums from oppression in England. Maryland and Pennsylvania being two key examples. To say that the rights the people who founded each colony didn't influence the founding fathers is absurd. Go back and take a serious history class, k?

"Religion" and "Speech", by the way.

*ahem* now on to my reply:

OH MAN I MET SOME INTOLERANT PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW A RELIGION IN MY LIFE, THEREFORE RELIGION IS EVIL AND ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS IT IS A BAD PERSON.

That's what your argument sounds like. God does not hate gays. That's nowhere in the Bible. Saying God hates anyone is ridiculous and shows you're uneducated. Saying he's some giant floating man in the sky also shows you're uneducated because that's not a view anyone in any major organized religion believes. Saying it's inherently irrational also shows you're uneducated, especially if you are a scientist because the vast majority of major scientific breakthroughs in the past, oh, 3 centuries all came from religious men. Ever heard of Albert Einstein? How about the person commonly accepted as the most intelligent living man on earth today, Stephen Hawking? Let's go back in time a bit. Galileo believed in God (ironic his works were shunned like they were). How about Sir Isaac Newton, the genius behind almost all advanced math even in today's society?

I consider myself a highly rational person, and I believe in a higher power. In fact, my convictions on religion are dictated by my rational side because my impulsive emotional side wants me to abandon it. Stop spouting nonsense. It doesn't become you.

And learn to spell. Most browsers have a spell-checker built in to it nowadays.

Thomas Jefferson professed to not believe in a God in a number of his private letters. Of course he made no mention

of this in public, with the population almost universally religious. A couple of others are suspected to feel the same way.

Of course, most of them were religious, and your point about the original colonies is entirely valid.

Talking in big letters doesn't help. Where in the bible does it say free speech is good? Most of it says speaking against God is a sin. That's the point I was trying to make.

For one thing, it is uncertain if Einstein was religious. And even if he was it makes little difference. 2/3 of scientists are atheists, and 90% of Nobel Prize winners. There is a direct correlation between intelligence and lack of religon. More university professors are atheists than high school teachers. More people with P.h.D's are atheists than high school drop-outs. Again, this makes little difference, but I find it interesting.

I don't mind if a scientist is religious. I do mind if he says that things written in the Bible are as factual and rational as thoroughly tested and falsified, scientific facts.

Sorry about the spelling. I'm a good speller, but a horrible typer. And my spell-checker is broken.

[sandmanccl]

Thomas Jefferson professed to not believe in a God in a number of his private letters. Of course he made no mention

of this in public, with the population almost universally religious. A couple of others are suspected to feel the same way.

Of course, most of them were religious, and your point about the original colonies is entirely valid.

Jefferson also professed to believe in Providence, which is not the Christian ideal of God but it's still believing in a higher power. I'll grudgingly go find links if you want them, but it won't be today because in the middle of arguing with people, I've been writing a paper due in T minus 4 and a half hours.

Talking in big letters doesn't help. Where in the bible does it say free speech is good? Most of it says speaking against God is a sin. That's the point I was trying to make.

Free speech as dictated by Constitution does not mean saying whatever you want. It's about the free exchange of ideas. That has more to do with Enlightenment thinking than it does with religion, true. But it doesn't mean I can yell bomb on an airplane, it doesn't mean I can yell fire in a movie theater.

It's not so much that religion safeguards free speech as free speech safeguards religion. That was kind of my point.

For one thing, it is uncertain if Einstein was religious. And even if he was it makes little difference. 2/3 of scientists are atheists, and 90% of Nobel Prize winners. There is a direct correlation between intelligence and lack of religon. More university professors are atheists than high school teachers. More people with P.h.D's are atheists than high school drop-outs. Again, this makes little difference, but I find it interesting.

Show me a list of winners of the Nobel Prize for science.

Show me a list of the most influential authors of all time. Show me a list of the people who run fortune 500 companies.

There IS no correlation to intelligence and the ability to believe in the unknowable. I realize that most scientists are atheist, but the vast majority of them that actually accomplish something usually claim there's a higher power because far too much is left unexplained.

As for the rationality argument, most people's faith is based on feelings and events they've witnessed time and time again in their lives. That's pretty much the scientific method right there, so if it's not rational, then neither is science.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Just saying 'scientists are atheists' isn't all that fair or accurate. More will show up in the right fields, but there are also some that think a lot of religion's completely valid and the bible is just a bunch of technicolor.