Politics and Religion A dangerous game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nemesis said:
Oh my! Massachusetts seems set to cause you some consternation then.
Click to expand...
No; The fact that marriage is between a man & a woman is what is causing some enuff consternation to file silly lawsuits in courts.

And as I?ve previously suggested, the ?argument? has been arbitrarily limited...In sum, a sham argument.
Click to expand...
No, Quarto's argument is limited because he's dealing with the bottom line issue to "the society" as a whole, in the context of the stability of the family, and thus the society as a whole.
Case in point: If some guy comes after me with a machete, I don't care one whit whether he's doing so because he's thinks I'm an alien reading his brain waves or because he's pissed that I cut in front of him in traffic. Either way, he's goin' down. Simplistic, "arbitrarily limited" reasoning on my part? Sure, but the bottom line remains the same.

Excellent case in point?my point, that is. ?Fewer? is irrelevant to the real argument. ?Any? child born to a gay couple improves the birth rate...What?s not to like then? Hmm?
Click to expand...
'Fraid not...You completely miss the boat there, bub: Gay couples are incapable - on their own - of producing offspring.

This just keeps getting...more and more silly. Now we are to believe that a person who is gay is impotent or barren as the case may be...
Click to expand...
Silly?...
Hmmm...so, exactly which part of "incapable - ON THEIR OWN - of producing offspring" (emphasis added) don't you understand?... Perhaps you need to go back to the "gay couple stranded on a deserted island" example to make things just a tad bit clearer... :rolleyes:
 
No; The fact that marriage is between a man & a woman is what is causing some enuff consternation to file silly lawsuits in courts.
Click to expand...

That are succeeding. And so . . . silly courts? Silly constitutions? Silly civilization? Dear me! Not the right way to go if you’re really out, as you claim, to preserve society. Best to go the other way and leave it with the silly laws that got overturned . . . and good riddance!

No, Quarto's argument is limited because he's dealing with the bottom line issue to "the society" as a whole, in the context of the stability of the family, and thus the society as a whole.
Click to expand...

No, his argument had little to do with family or society, especially “as a whole”, unless of course one is unconsciously fiddling with “human” too. But what I think he and you have really been doing is trying to dress up moral viewpoints, which you have every right to believe, in scientific garb (read “garbage").

Fraid not...You completely miss the boat there, bub: Gay couples are incapable - on their own - of producing offspring.
Click to expand...

You really need to take off those blinders.

Silly?...
Hmmm...so, exactly which part of "incapable - ON THEIR OWN - of producing offspring" (emphasis added) don't you understand?...
Click to expand...

I understand that the notion of “on their own” is wishful thinking on your part, and . . .

Perhaps you need to go back to the "gay couple stranded on a deserted island" example to make things just a tad bit clearer...
Click to expand...

. . . that you seem to like your fantasy example a bit too much.
 
It would probably be a bad, bad idea for me to bring up Bush pushing for funding churches in this thread

Bush seeks billions for religious groups

NEW ORLEANS, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) asked his Justice Department (news - web sites) to take steps to release some 3.7 billion dollars in federal monies aimed at helping religious charities, the White House said.

"At the President's direction, the Department of Justice (news - web sites) took action to finalize regulations that implement President Bush's policy of ending discrimination against faith-based charities in the Federal grants process," it said in a statement.


The move applies to 3.7 billion dollars, including programs to support victims of crime, the prevention of child victimization, and safe schools, the White House said.


Bush decided one year ago to implement by decree some elements of his controversial "faith-based initiative," which aims to steer funds to religious charities, eroding the traditional separation between church and state.


The program was part of the president's 2000 campaign platform, but the divided US Congress has yet to approve it.


Hoping to win momentum for the initiative, as well as court black voters who overwhelmingly backed his 2000 rival, Al Gore (news - web sites), Bush visited a New Orleans church he said would benefit from his plan.


"This country must not fear the influence of faith in the future of this country. We must welcome faith in order to make America a better place," said the president, who is a regular church-goer.
Click to expand...
 
allocating tax money to churches? not a good idea at all, they dont pay tax and are exempt from federal taxes including income tax, when the churches help the needy the food the bring is donated by the parish in the name of the church, plus the collection plate never seems to be empty when its finished its circulation during each service held. Ive been to a church actually had the audacity to pass the collection plate 3 times in a service, and yet another one passed one during a funeral service. with no federal threat of tax evasion and in the rare instances there is an audit what is there to say the records are correct. we know how cash works and can dissapear or miraculously change value when recorded. why give them back what they dont pay in the first place?
 
The sheer fact that multiple people are trying to argue that planes and boats are the same because they share select similarities is truly remarkable.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
The sheer fact that multiple people are trying to argue that planes and boats are the same because they share select similarities is truly remarkable.
Click to expand...

Unless ... they're ... BOAT-PLANES!
 
Quarto's original post: "One flies but cannot sail (with the exception of flying boats, as I'm sure somebody will point out ), while the other sails but cannot fly."
 
10322132212212.jpg
 
Hmm. After typing a lengthy reply to Nemesis' post, it occured to me that there's no point whatsoever posting it. After all, Nemesis has already stooped to the "I bet you don't think they're even human" argument, so all in all, it's most likely going to be impossible to persuade him with something as trivial and irrelevant as logic and common sense. So, allow me to end my input into this thread with another humorous (yet, sadly, very accurate) analogy.

President Bush: We need more carotene in our society. Let us assist the carrot-growers, so that we have more carrots and more carotene.
Vindicator: But this is discrimination! You must either assist apple-growers equally or not assist anyone.
Quarto: Carrots are a much better source of carotene than apples, though. And apple-growers need carotene too.
Nemesis: Who cares? You cannot discriminate against apple-growers, they're equal to carrot-growers!
Quarto: But... they grow different things... and carrots are a better source of carotene...
Nemesis: Bah, next you'll be saying apple-growers aren't even human! Apples are good and equal to carrots! And even if they contain less carotene, it doesn't matter, we can genetically engineer new apples with more carotene!
Quarto: Sigh.
 
Apples suck, oranges are so much better. And they provide Vitamin C too! You can take your apples and shove them up your you-know what! How you like them apples, eh?
 
so let me get this gay what quatro is saying is we cant treat gays equally because straights are way better than US?

BTW just a thought I had if States that don't allow sexual orientation discrimination and yet refused to grant gay churches the power to unionize couples "by the power vester in me by the state of wherever" is simply discrimination by that very state is it not?

-Rance-

we homosexuals are human and should be treated with the same respect and rights as straight people quatro we are not the soul cause of any moral decline nor the decline in the so called family its just easier to point the finger so you dont have to do anything just continue pointing fingers and society will turn in on its self not because of gay people but because once we're out of the way you shall start blaming someone/somthing else until that is out of the way and so forth

-Rance-
 
After all, Nemesis has already stooped to the "I bet you don't think they're even human" argument, so all in all, it's most likely going to be impossible to persuade him with something as trivial and irrelevant as logic and common sense.
Click to expand...

Now, now. It was through logic and common sense, following your claims, that I finally reached that contention, hoping in that way to show where they eventually, inevitably led if we took them seriously. But though I thereby raised the question of what you believed in that regard, I actually only accused you of acting from another, different inclination, namely what I do suspect is your (and others') reluctance to straightforwardly assert that you think homosexuality is immoral and that that’s one, if not the major or only, reason society should treat them unequally.

As for your amusing analogy, you should have used tomatoes, referring back to the time people mistakenly feared they were poisonous.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top