I Guess Ms. USA

[StupidNation]

When a principle is brought up, most of you geniuses bring up circumstances to undermine the principle. That's because, as a mentioned before, people cannot think logically even if they believe they do so. The principle of natural creation is in principle possible with a man and a woman, and it cannot in principle happen with homosexual unions. That does not mean that the principle is denied when couples are sterile or the like because the principle was never violated, just circumstances.

 

Values are based on principles, not whims. If you think I'm going to argue with a bunch of guys who have never studied minor or major logic, yet claim to be logicians, you wrong, I'm wasting my time. I haven't seen a logical argument. All I see that pass as arguments is that the circumstances to the sacrality of marriage have changed with increases in divorce and abuse. That does not change the argument, but in fact enhances it.

 

With the destruction of the sacrality of marriage and family life comes higher crime rates, higher dependency on others intellectually and economically, and a complete loss of responsibility and moral focus. The stats that verify this are astronomical in all regards. So in essence the stats to show divorces don't devalue the principle of traditional marriage, but enhance it.

 

Why don't you show the increase of incarcerations in single families, suicide rates, depression, and the like. Homosexuality is in fact increasing in societies which proves it's social rather than genetic. There has not been one scientific proof given for homosexuality but the repeated assertion that it is genetic without proof.

 

In answer that some animals are homosexuals, that also implies that is also natural to commit filicide and cannibalism as some animals do those things as well. Applying animal actions to universal ethics is laughable at best.

 

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. -Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos medicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-88

 

Animals are not a measure of what is truly natural to man. Man has the use of reason. Animals commit acts heinous to rational adults such as infanticide, filicide, and cannibalism.

[jjamie12]

With the destruction of the sacrality of marriage and family life comes higher crime rates, higher dependency on others intellectually and economically, and a complete loss of responsibility and moral focus. The stats that verify this are astronomical in all regards. So in essence the stats to show divorces don't devalue the principle of traditional marriage, but enhance it.

 

If all of this is true (and I don't have any real reason to believe that it isn't), how in the world can you possibly come into this thread and argue that some people shouldn't be allowed to be married?

 

Logic, indeed.

[Alaska Darin]

When a principle is brought up, most of you geniuses bring up circumstances to undermine the principle. That's because, as a mentioned before, people cannot think logically even if they believe they do so. The principle of natural creation is in principle possible with a man and a woman, and it cannot in principle happen with homosexual unions. That does not mean that the principle is denied when couples are sterile or the like because the principle was never violated, just circumstances.

 

Values are based on principles, not whims. If you think I'm going to argue with a bunch of guys who have never studied minor or major logic, yet claim to be logicians, you wrong, I'm wasting my time. I haven't seen a logical argument. All I see that pass as arguments is that the circumstances to the sacrality of marriage have changed with increases in divorce and abuse. That does not change the argument, but in fact enhances it.

 

With the destruction of the sacrality of marriage and family life comes higher crime rates, higher dependency on others intellectually and economically, and a complete loss of responsibility and moral focus. The stats that verify this are astronomical in all regards. So in essence the stats to show divorces don't devalue the principle of traditional marriage, but enhance it.

 

Why don't you show the increase of incarcerations in single families, suicide rates, depression, and the like. Homosexuality is in fact increasing in societies which proves it's social rather than genetic. There has not been one scientific proof given for homosexuality but the repeated assertion that it is genetic without proof.

 

In answer that some animals are homosexuals, that also implies that is also natural to commit filicide and cannibalism as some animals do those things as well. Applying animal actions to universal ethics is laughable at best.

 

Animals are not a measure of what is truly natural to man. Man has the use of reason. Animals commit acts heinous to rational adults such as infanticide, filicide, and cannibalism.

Yeah, homosexuality is increasing because of social causes. Not as nature's response to overpopulation. Remember when you made the "decision" on the type of woman you were attracted to? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

The rest of your blather is nothing more than drilled response. Incarceration is "up" because as our society "advances" it continues to remove personal freedom. The U.S. Tax Code alone is over thirteen THOUSAND pages.

 

But we can pretend that people deciding they no longer want to live together is the reason more people are in jail because it fits the zealot zeitgeist. Now get back to worshiping the all powerful invisible being because it's easier than facing the really tough questions of existence. GOD SAID SO!

 

BTW, queers got married in Iowa this morning. Oh, the horror.

[John Adams]

When a principle is brought up, most of you geniuses bring up circumstances to undermine the principle. That's because, as a mentioned before, people cannot think logically even if they believe they do so. The principle of natural creation is in principle possible with a man and a woman, and it cannot in principle happen with homosexual unions. That does not mean that the principle is denied when couples are sterile or the like because the principle was never violated, just circumstances.

 

Values are based on principles, not whims. If you think I'm going to argue with a bunch of guys who have never studied minor or major logic, yet claim to be logicians, you wrong, I'm wasting my time. I haven't seen a logical argument. All I see that pass as arguments is that the circumstances to the sacrality of marriage have changed with increases in divorce and abuse. That does not change the argument, but in fact enhances it.

 

With the destruction of the sacrality of marriage and family life comes higher crime rates, higher dependency on others intellectually and economically, and a complete loss of responsibility and moral focus. The stats that verify this are astronomical in all regards. So in essence the stats to show divorces don't devalue the principle of traditional marriage, but enhance it.

 

Why don't you show the increase of incarcerations in single families, suicide rates, depression, and the like. Homosexuality is in fact increasing in societies which proves it's social rather than genetic. There has not been one scientific proof given for homosexuality but the repeated assertion that it is genetic without proof.

 

In answer that some animals are homosexuals, that also implies that is also natural to commit filicide and cannibalism as some animals do those things as well. Applying animal actions to universal ethics is laughable at best.

 

 

 

Animals are not a measure of what is truly natural to man. Man has the use of reason. Animals commit acts heinous to rational adults such as infanticide, filicide, and cannibalism.

 

So your principle-based argument is one that relies on statistics? Stupid, you are indeed a master of logic. And hypocrisy.

 

Stupid, almost everyone here arguing for homosexual marriage is actually arguing solely on principle. The principles at stake are free choice, morality, and respect. Adults are free to choose who they want to love and spend their lives with. It violates someone's freedom when Stupid limits the way in which they can express their love. It is right and natural for reasoning humans to love. It is unnatural for Stupid to define arbitrary limits on love. It is respectful to allow adults to love how they wish. It is disrespectful for Stupid to intercede in that love.

 

When people note the homosexual (or urge-based) actions of animals, it is retaliatory to the argument that only that which is natural is OK. You are right Stupid: Humans reason. And that is why they can love who they want. And that is why it is wrong for Stupid to insert himself into that relationship.

 

I have no idea or care whether sexuality-choice is natural or social. I know of instances of both, as I'm sure most people do. Who cares why adults love the way they do?

[Typical TBD Guy]

So your principle-based argument is one that relies on statistics? Stupid, you are indeed a master of logic. And hypocrisy.

 

LMAO I had the same thought while reading Stupid's drivel. Not only that, but the "statistics" he used to support his argument are mired in cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies.

[X. Benedict]

If gay people marry, Jesus will come back pissed.

Or, he'll change water to wine for the party.

 

One or the other.

[StupidNation]

So your principle-based argument is one that relies on statistics? Stupid, you are indeed a master of logic. And hypocrisy.

 

Are you honestly that intellectually inept? I made the statement based on principle, and used stats to give verify a point. The principle never changed, nor did I use stats as the principle. This is why it's my last post, you guys aren't smart enough to understand an argument.

 

Statistics can be used as verification of circumstantial evidence, and it's not a post hoc fallacy as someone else implied. In order for it to be post hoc fallacy it would mean it doesn't necessary have to happen, and I assert that it is. Take for example orthodox Jews who have less than a half a percent homosexuality issue. Sociologists, at least honest ones, will point out to the solid family values and the stability of their marriages. If a stream always flows in the same direction and I drop only one branch to watch the direction of the stream, there would have to be a conflicting argument to show it's a post hoc fallacy (although you did not imply that).

 

The principle is homosexual unions cannot in principle be done for the purpose for which the act of sexuality exists. There is no possibility for that act to be in principle good, moral, or lawful. I never used stats to make that assertion.

 

Stupid, almost everyone here arguing for homosexual marriage is actually arguing solely on principle. The principles at stake are free choice, morality, and respect. Adults are free to choose who they want to love and spend their lives with. It violates someone's freedom when Stupid limits the way in which they can express their love. It is right and natural for reasoning humans to love. It is unnatural for Stupid to define arbitrary limits on love. It is respectful to allow adults to love how they wish. It is disrespectful for Stupid to intercede in that love.

 

Should there be marriage for incest, polygamy, 2 men 3 women, and lastly what is age you feel is required before adulthood?

 

If the criteria is simply adults consenting why would any of those questions I posed be objected to? If you agree that all of those scenarios listed above as viable you are consistent, but not correct.

 

Law cannot be separated from morality no more than light can be separated from the sun. Death is judged as natural or unnatural based on facts, and if the death was unnatural we judge the morality of the act: self-defense or unnecessary. Morality is always applied in actions that affect the public and subsequent laws are made to protect the moral and natural law. The death of all society is the acceptance of law without moral compass. No society has lasted without that compass.

 

When people note the homosexual (or urge-based) actions of animals, it is retaliatory to the argument that only that which is natural is OK. You are right Stupid: Humans reason. And that is why they can love who they want. And that is why it is wrong for Stupid to insert himself into that relationship.

 

They used animals, not I.

 

Love is first a choice which resides in the will, and secondary implies feelings and emotions. Love, by definition, is to choose the good. The good is based on objectivity. Something cannot be truly loved it is objectively bad. Goodness, perennially defined, is to do something for which it was made. A clock is good if it keeps time, man is good when he acts by laws which are guided by intellect first and then will. You are making all actions contingent on the will and license. One cannot truly love murder or stealing. Their intellect would be deformed as to what the will chooses, or the can choose their own selfish good over the true good and objective norms of justice are applied.

 

Liberty and freedom are the rights to do the things we ought to do. We have no right to be free to murder, free to scream fire in buildings, and freedom to damage another's name through lies and deception.

 

I have no idea or care whether sexuality-choice is natural or social. I know of instances of both, as I'm sure most people do. Who cares why adults love the way they do?

 

All life is inherently religious. Aristotle said man is inherently religious because a religion is anything which is the teaching of how things should run in society. I'm not talking about institutional religions, but religion. You care about what I'm saying because essentially you believe I should not speak about these things in public and should be disinterested. Yet, you are very interested in what I'm saying.

 

That's hypocrisy... namely, to assert I shouldn't care about others views in public, but you care enough only rebut me. Well my friend of fantastic mental gymnastics, why should you care about me if society shouldn't care about my beliefs and views if I'm an adult? If you answer you are a hypocrite to your own world-view.

 

Here is a great discussion with a current president, who doesn't use one argument based on principle, with a guy who actually was properly educated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxiVnuFFoI

[X. Benedict]

All life is inherently religious. Aristotle said man is inherently religious because a religion is anything which is the teaching of how things should run in society. I'm not talking about institutional religions, but religion. You care about what I'm saying because essentially you believe I should not speak about these things in public and should be disinterested. Yet, you are very interested in what I'm saying.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxiVnuFFoI

A curious use of Aristotle. Now my Aristotle may be rusty, but I think if he uses it at all it is probably in

On Politics where he uses it as an argument that civic life and political life are commingled with religion and important

for a well-run tyranny.

 

Beyond that, Aristotle believed in teleology or final causes....which could be thought of as inherently religious I suppose if you believe in a world in which everything is cause and effect.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is why it's my last post, you guys aren't smart enough to understand an argument.

Yahoo!!!!!!!! This place just got a little less stupid.

 

Unless you're a liar.

[X. Benedict]

Yahoo!!!!!!!! This place just got a little less stupid.

 

Unless you're a liar.

 

Wasn't this a Star Trek episode?

[John Adams]

This is why it's my last post, you guys aren't smart enough to understand an argument.

 

Thank you Jesus and baby Jesus.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Here is a great discussion with a current president, who doesn't use one argument based on principle, with a guy who actually was properly educated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxiVnuFFoI

 

Alan Keyes is a perfect example of how religion causes otherwise rational men to twist themselves in completely illogical knots. Why am I not surprised to discover Stupid thinks so highly of him?

[X. Benedict]

Alan Keyes is a perfect example of how religion causes otherwise rational men to twist themselves in completely illogical knots. Why am I not surprised to discover Stupid thinks so highly of him?

 

Hardly the case for Keyes. I think he would be the opposite. He does not root arguments in scriptural hermeneutics as much as he is likely to argue natural law in which he probably sees Locke, Hobbes, and to a much lesser extent Hamilton as heirs to the Western scholastic tradition.

 

Actually, I think that Alan Keyes is good for democracy as long as he is never elected.

The guy is a demon debater and a strict constructionist, and they can be bloody fun to have around.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Hardly the case for Keyes. I think he would be the opposite. He does not root arguments in scriptural hermeneutics as much as he is likely to argue natural law in which he probably sees Locke, Hobbes, and to a much lesser extent Hamilton as heirs to the Western scholastic tradition.

 

Actually, I think that Alan Keyes is good for democracy as long as he is never elected.

The guy is a demon debater and a strict constructionist, and they can be bloody fun to have around.

 

Totally incorrect. Keyes is a devout Catholic who warps selected parts of Enlightenment philosophy to advance a bigoted religious right agenda. You think Keyes is harmless compared to the Pat Robertson types because he doesn't quote scripture; I'd argue that he's only relatively harmless because his audience is so small.

[X. Benedict]

Totally incorrect. Keyes is a devout Catholic who warps selected parts of Enlightenment philosophy to advance a bigoted religious right agenda. You think Keyes is harmless compared to the Pat Robertson types because he doesn't quote scripture; I'd argue that he's only relatively harmless because his audience is so small.

 

 

 

Keyes is a far different fish....... against abortion and homosexual rights for sure...but also a just war theorist who was against the Iraq war, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, Patriot Act.....no different from Pat Buchanan really. (who is also a Catholic...but so what?...both are moralists and not preachers with any ecclesiastic authority) So, as dangerous as Pat Buchanan? eeeewwww spooky....and constitutional constructionists which it is hard for me to see how their Catholicism informs that more than a classical liberal education.

 

Rev. Robertson has an eschatology that changes week to week.....signs of the end times.....

 

 

edit: okay...he favored a first strike in Iraq...but he can't claim that as a religious program...

[Typical TBD Guy]

Keyes is a far different fish....... against abortion and homosexual rights for sure...but also a just war theorist who was against the Iraq war, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, Patriot Act.....no different from Pat Buchanan really. (who is also a Catholic...but so what?...both are moralists and not preachers with any ecclesiastic authority) So, as dangerous as Pat Buchanan? eeeewwww spooky....and constitutional constructionists which it is hard for me to see how their Catholicism informs that more than a classical liberal education.

 

Rev. Robertson has an eschatology that changes week to week.....signs of the end times.....

 

 

edit: okay...he favored a first strike in Iraq...but he can't claim that as a religious program...

 

You don't think the Catholic faith guides Keyes and Buchanan in their morality? Those two aren't exactly "cafeteria Catholics." I might even suggest Keyes and Buchanan are "cafeteria classical liberals," since they have no qualms picking and choosing which rights for which individuals can be granted equal protection under the law.

 

Seriously now, did you even watch Stupid's YouTube link? Gay couple adoption inevitably leads to incest?!

[X. Benedict]

You don't think the Catholic faith guides Keyes and Buchanan in their morality? Those two aren't exactly "cafeteria Catholics." I might even suggest Keyes and Buchanan are "cafeteria classical liberals," since they have no qualms picking and choosing which rights for which individuals can be granted equal protection under the law.

 

Seriously now, did you even watch Stupid's YouTube link? Gay couple adoption inevitably leads to incest?!

 

Buchanan and Keyes, and you can even throw Bill Bennet in there if you want, are weirdly consistent and hardly arbitrary.

I just don't think they are dangerous. Probably about a third of the Congress claims to

be a practicing Catholics...I'm really more interested in how they vote.

Keyes and Buchanan can be far right of center (even in their church) because they don't really

stand much of a chance of ever serving in a representative government except by appointment.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually, not. I was never interested in beauty pageants either as an observer or participant. And I am actually considered to be pretty. Short, but pretty. And I'm smart enough to know that beauty doesn't last forever.

 

And old enough, to boot.

 

So if the point of a beauty pageant is to judge beauty, fine. But don't try to "upgrade" it by pretending that other stuff counts. Because if talent or brains would possibly make up for a shortcoming in the beauty department, then we'd see more Susan Boyles on the runway then wouldn't we?

 

I hate beauty pageants, for the record. Waste of valuable airtime.

 

I am sure you are just a fine hunk yourself ...of what, I can't say. And couldn't care less.

 

Oh don't lie, Deb. You know you want a piece of this.

[IDBillzFan]

And I am actually considered to be pretty.

Your profile picture pretty much provides evidence to the contrary.

[ExiledInIllinois]

And I'd say, it's not your decision to make.

 

 

I say it is ALL of our decision to make... Let the people/society decide. It is a social standard, no?