Choices

Remove all ads!

At three I didn't believe in Santa for the simple reason I wasn't taught to believe in Santa.

By your definition of ADD I have it which I don't.

Yes, we should be talking about peoples personal rights for the simple reason we (everyone) will not agree on one and only one morality. Governments exist (idealy) to protect people in general. That is why a government cannot and should not legislate morality. Yes, there is a fine line and we can agrue about ad nauseum.

As I understand it NOG wants rights for a restricted group of people. I want rights for as many people as possible.

And we are now completely and

Since back to Gnarf's post. Surprise, Gnarf, I agree with you. We do have the right to push for the laws we want. You wave your placard on one side of the street and I'll wave mine on the other side; then we can meet for a nice diet soda or OJ. Personally I'd rather have a beer but I know you don't use alcoholic drinks. Compare experiences and part friendly combatants.

And to find some relationship to the original subject of the thread these are choices we make.

Gad, am I getting to hate that word.

 

This example isn't even remotely relevant NOG. The distinction between our modern government and the Article of Confederation was not one of individual rights. The system fell apart because states (not people!) had too much power. The central government couldn't raise taxes or otherwise enforce any of it's laws. It was, to put it bluntly, completely ineffective and that is why we abandoned it. The issue of individual rights never actually came up. To quote you......it, uh, looks like you are wrong, NOG.

Learn to take a joke, dude. I was making a generalization. And if you expect me to believe you understood the concept of death when you were three........I'm waiting for your timeshare offer.

[ May 01, 2006, 21:04: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

For a very restricted group of people indeed. The only people that can make any valid choice about anything in the realm of morality are people who are just like him.

 

Unfortunately, people who are just like him seem to have a lot of power right now.

 

Drew posted same time I did. I'd like to add a little to his post.

Congress can initiate a change in the Constitution but it is not law unless 2/3 of the States have ratified it. Easier said then done.

 

@Fel:
Actually, he does have ADD, and what you're describing is ADHD. My dad is a professional psychologist himself and hates the over-diagnosis of ADD, but he has severe ADD himself and requires medication to function like a normal human being. Most people with ADD that is not hyperactive do not notice their problem themselves until their lives start to fall apart, and even then they may not. That is the difference between non-hyperactive and hyperactive ADD.

@Everyone bashing me on my position:
Did any of you read what I actually wrote? Have any of you read what I have posted in the past on this? I'm actually NOT advocating the illegalization of homosexual unions. I'm just saying the gov't has the right to if the people, IN MAJORITY (2/3 as Nakia said), want to. If they don't, guess what, it won't happen.

@Drew:

If that was a joke, it was the most poorly put joke in all of history, or close at least.
Also, death isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. It really isn't.

 

I've yet to meet or even hear of a three year old that could make an informed and concious choice by themselves. There might be a possibility of such a being existing but the probability is about the same as the US changing the constitution to allow Bush another term.

Children are at an impressionable age and usually believe anything anyone tells them. These are the people sunday schools aim at. Get em while they're young, grind into their mind the notion of "God works in mysterious ways" and you've got perfect little zealots.

 

NOG: We are arguing that even if the majority wants to take rights away from an entire group of people that they shouldn't be able to do so. When the majority limits the rights a minority we call that discrimination. As you can see, there is definitely still a gigantic difference of opinion.

Regarding the level of understanding of three year old children.......don't make me post links. I have found 15 phsychological journal links in the last 5 minutes that all say you are talking out of your ass on this one. Ask your father, since he's a phsychologist, if a three year old can truly understand the permanancy of death or the complexities of human nature. A three year old child has the potential to understand the complexities of life and the meaning of death, guilt, or the finer points of morality. Potential. Meaning that they aren't there yet.....because they lack the experience to understand it for themselves and also the vocabulary to have it explained to them.

 

Absolutely. 2/3 leaves out 1/3 of people. If the 1/3 that don't get what they want have fewer rights than the 2/3, that is most certainly discrimination.

 

All I said was that here in the USA to change the Constitution 2/3rds of the States must ratify any amendment made by Congress.

Nog, I have read your posts several times and very carefully. I have asked for explanations or amplification. If you feel your posts are misunderstood perhaps you should consider wording them differently.

 

But we aren't criminalizing it, but I don't want it encouraged. I don't want their sins thrown in my face, and I don't want what what I hold sacred soiled by something we consider to be the most grievous of sins.

I have Tourette Syndrome. I know that feeling all too well.

So Homosexual behaviour would not be criminalized, but neither ought it be condoned.

I really should drink more water, but I won't lecture you if you have a beer. It's another ****** (I know you're getting sick of the c word...)

Informed choice is a learned behaviour.

Unfortunately, That's the way things go. You will NEVER receive 100% agreement on something like that...

 

They don't think it's a sin. While you don't want their "sins" shoved in your face I'm pretty sure that they don't want your "misguided sense of morality" shoved in theirs. Further, you do realise that by not allowing gay civil unions you are, in effect, discouraging monogamy in the gay community, right? You have every right to practice your own moral beliefs. However, you have no more right to legislate against gay marriage, an issue that is obviously near and dear to your heart, than I do to legislate against meat consumption which is very dear to mine. Ironically, I can actually demonstrate beyond even a shadow of a doubt that someone is hurt by meat consumption (the animal) while the same can't be said for gay marriage.....so, technically speaking, a stronger case can be made for depriving you of your steak than can be made for depriving my best friend of the right to marry his lover of 10 years. No one would be injured by his marriage.

Which a three year old won't have learned yet.

[ May 02, 2006, 10:46: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Can't quite agree with you there. A stronger case? You'd be depriving pretty much a 95% majority of people from a chosen food group and forcing many to take dietry supplements. Other medical terms involved and so forth bla bla bla. But you do make a good point about monogomy. I mentioned before that homosexual unions is NOT a sin (only homosexuality is) yet sleeping with multiple partners is, homosexual or not.

 

Nope. I won't argue with you if you state that it is OK to kill for food or even that it's a matter of personal choice. However, I've been vegan for 10 years and take no supplements. According to the position of the American Diatetics Association (ADA), a government organization, no supplementation of even a vegan (no meat, dairy, eggs, fish, honey) diet is necessary and vegans have no more difficulty getting all their nutrient requirements (even calcium!) than anyone else. No one needs meat to live. Argue that it's a matter of Choice or that it's perfectly ethical to kill for food......but don't argue that it's necessary. If it were necessary to eat meat, then I, my wife, and two children would be dead.

[ May 02, 2006, 16:11: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I will happily say that it is OK to kill for food, because killing for food is a perfectly natural thing. What is unnatural is consuming highly processed chemicals for food (e.g. margarine, cheese whiz, Coca-Cola....).

But it is also OK to NOT kill for food, if you feel that way. Eating meat and not eating meat are both perfectly fine options in my opinion.

 

Actually, I'm trying to discourage the gay community altogether. I'm not trying to promote promiscuity, but to encourage Christian morality. People rail on the Catholic church for discouraging the use of Condoms and blaming them for the spread of AIDS. The truth is that they condemn pre- and extramarital sex, and if they aren't screwing around they don't need condoms. It's a big difference here...

Technically, you are right, but the majority don't have that understanding on how to do that. In Mormon scripture, it does say that excessive use of meat is unhealthy. It is not forbidden, and likely the appropriate amount is less than what most people would think...

Again, this is a choice. In this case, sure there may be some choices better than others, but they are still choices. With the issue of homosexuality, the choice is much more difficult and much more polarized.

 

You must have missed this little story:

 

First off, What's your source for this information?

Secondly, the Catholic church has it's own source document--the Bible. It forbids premarital and extramarital sex. If those tenets are abided by, then Condoms would not be necessary.

Third, I would have absolutely no problem demanding someone with HIV or AIDS to abstain from sex entirely. Knowingly giving someone a lethal disease is nothing short of murder.

 

Wrong. It takes no more special knowledge to take in a nutritious vegan diet than it does to take in a nutritious meat based diet. Eating nothing but lettuce would kill you, but so would eating nothing but pork.

Gay people aren't going to stop being gay if you deny them the right to marry. They will, however, not marry. Since only having sex with a single, committed partner is encouraged by Christianity and (contemporary) mormonism, the Christian right is actually encouraging promiscuity.....whether they want to or not.

 

Gnarff, the Catholic Church is against the use of condoms in all circumstances - even as a form of avoiding pregnancy between married partners. While I agree that condoms still aren't NECESSARY, to say that if people didn't engage in extramarital sex there would be no need for them, discounts the people who use them for birth control even if they are married.

While a bit I will say that the only form of birth control accepted by the Catholic Church is Natural Family Planning, or NFP. It's kind of a combination of the rhythm method with the incorporation of some basic biology of when a woman is most likely to get pregnant during her cycle. By monitoring things like her body temperature, you can determine when a woman is more or less likely to conceive. Any method that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (as with many birth control pills), or creates a barrier that prevents the sperm from getting to the egg (as is the case with condoms) is forbidden by the Catholic Church.