SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

Dave_pro2a said:

Keep your religion out out it please.

Click to expand...

Only to the extent you do likewise.

Objectivism is little more than an atheistic religion. And I note that some of the more vocal anarchists here treat any questioning of their NAP/NIFF much more as heresy than do men of faith when it comes to questions of church doctrine.

It is funny that you attack religion when I've not much mentioned it at all in regard to community standards or conduct.

That said, if religion is not divinely inspired, it might well be viewed as the way in which successful societies have arranged and catalogued a few thousand years of "lessons learned" about what conduct contributes to functioning communities vs what conduct is damaging. For example, one need not even believe in God to concede the overwhelming evidence that unwed pregnancy and births and fatherless homes are a major contributor to violent criminal conduct, lack of education, and other major social problems. Indeed, only a small-minded bigot, kicking against an ideal merely because it may be tied to religious beliefs would suggest that widespread bastarditity is anything other than a grave social ill.

Dave_pro2a said:

Most here are NOT part of 'your community,' nor do we want to be forcibly constrained by a religious influenced legal code.

Click to expand...

Heaven forbid we outlaw theft (thou shalt not steal), not encourage unwed births or the other problems associated with marital infidelity (thou shalt not commit adultery), or punish lying under oath and defaming a man's good name (thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not bear false witness). Who would want a legal code based on the premise of "doing unto others as thou would have them do unto you?" And while it is impossible to legislate thoughts or feelings, how many problems would be avoided by personal adherence to the command not to covet thy neighbors property?

Bigot and small minded continue to go together so very well. Some are so filled with hatred toward their supposed enemies (including religion), that they can't even think straight to see how silly their demands really are.

In a pluralistic society, "God said so" is not sufficient reason to legislate.

On the flip side, in a pluralistic society, "I don't believe in your god" is also not sufficient reason to remove from all consideration the ideas, ideals, values, and morals of those who do believe in God and whose sense of morality is shaped by that belief.

It is a myopic, ignorant arrogance that fails to see how much subjectivity is left even in a belief system names "objectivity."

Charles

God is not a name.......

You are the one redefining words that have meant something for millenia

nonameisgood said:

Marriage is not about sex. It is about permanent (or semi-permanent) relationships. At the time of the bible, most marriages were about property. Wives were chattel. Men had multiple wives. Men had sex with other women but women were held and controlled by one man. In some places, it is still that way.
Stop defining marriage on your terms. It is not one thing to all people.
Why would a group who values committed relationships not endorse more of these instead if fewer? Because it doesn't fit their narrow view and because they are so heavily invested in a lie that changing now would damage their image and agenda (which is about control, nothing more.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Marriage has always been about unions between men and women. It has never before been about unions between people of the same sex. The court has radically redefined what marriage is in order to reach its pre-determined conclusion.

It is just another creation of a special class with special privileges that the Democrats believe will vote for them because of it.

It has little to do with committed relationships, imho. It has to do with tearing down social structures so as to facilitate power to the statists. Churches and organized religion represent a power structure that is outside of statists control. More importantly, people with strong religious beliefs have always had the ability to follow their conscience in this country. Clearly this ruling is intended to strike against the ability of religious people to follow their conscience.

OC for ME said:

For those interested.

Kinda-sorta a ends justifies the means thing.

Click to expand...

Which makes it gross.....

Thanks for the link though interesting read.

Next item on the ToDo List

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/the-world-of-post-scotus-gay-marriage-and-church-insurance/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I find horrifying is the misapplication of the 1st amendment by some to discriminate, but property rights "hell no".

Its all about property rights.

Marry did at one time have a specific meaning the state f'd that up by licensing it and granting privileges, instead of saying "out state out" the cry is we want our privileges under this title get your own title if you want privileges by the anti gay marriage crowd.

Old Testament marriage was about property, not love and not children. It was about taking a wife and getting a dowry. It was about owning your wife. It was about planting your flag and marking territory. There was nothing about God sanctioning it, the rules were man's idea about how to control women and practical consideration.

Modern marriage is far more fair to women (they usually get to choose.) and now, people get free choice over with who they can share their lives. It's not just sex or procreation or practical matters. It might be about all of these or none of these. But in most cases, it's more just and fair and real than in the Old Testament. Time changes all things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

utbagpiper said:

As a mental exercise, IF, IF by some chance, it were ever demonstrated beyond all dispute that anarchy actually resulted in far less effective freedom, opportunity for individuals to reach their potential, individual happiness, and a peaceful society than some other system that was nearly so neat and clean of a theory, would you prefer to live in a poorly functioning society based on a what looks on paper to be a perfect system? Or would you prefer to live in the better functioning society, with more true liberty, even though that society was based on a system that didn't look as good on paper?

Click to expand...

I think I've made the answer to that clear in my responses throughout this thread.

My objective is to be moral.

When that objective is traded for improving one's conditions, even at the cost of morality, I most certainly deem that immoral.

stealthyeliminator said:

I think I've made the answer to that clear in my responses throughout this thread.

My objective is to be moral.

Click to expand...

As is mine. Is it moral to pursue a theoretically pure agenda at the real cost of liberty, happiness, prosperity, peace, and other desirable ends within society? Or is moral to support a less pure social theory if it yields better results for the community and for individuals within it?

stealthyeliminator said:

When that objective is traded for improving one's conditions, even at the cost of morality, I most certainly deem that immoral.

Click to expand...

I assume you write from mere misunderstanding. I've not suggested imposing on others to improve my condition. Rather, I propose that certain limits on what anarchists would desire may well be better for all of society and even the individual who feels put upon.

Regardless, accusing someone of being "immoral" is a loaded term that should be avoided. Were I to throw around that word based on my personal views of morality no doubt lots of folks here would take mighty offense. It is no less polite for you to use that word simply because your morality derives from a non-theist source.

Charles

nonameisgood said:

Old Testament marriage was about property, not love and not children.

Click to expand...

I recall a rather large emphasis on children in many of the OT marriage accounts including Abraham and his wife Saria.

Jacob agreed to labor 7 years for Rachael and the years passed quickly because of his love for her. When he was tricked into marrying Leah first, he labored another 7 years out of love.

Not to mention the first marriage mentioned in the Bible: Adam and Eve and the Lord's command to them, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

I think you may be over-simplifying and mis-stating the purposes of marriage in the OT. That their courtship rituals were different than ours (that developed only during the industrial revolution I might add), doesn't mean that marriage wasn't about love and children and the procreative act.

nonameisgood said:

It's not just sex or procreation or practical matters. It might be about all of these or none of these.

Click to expand...

But what is it that makes society take any interest at all in an otherwise private relationship? Society doesn't care about my bridge club. They don't have any interest in the relationship between my best friend and me. It takes no real interest in my relationship with my business partner despite the fact that our financial fortunes are inextricably linked.

Ironically, the thing that gives society any real interest in my relationship, the thing that makes it of public concern, is the most private aspect of it: the act that brings children into the picture. Consenting adults can and do fend for themselves. But children are in a unique situation: They are not unto themselves, yet they are not merely property. Society has an interest in how the rising generation is raised, and a moral obligation to protect the weakest members of society, yet an equally strong moral requirement to respect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit within the broadest limits possible. It is from the marriage bed itself that legal spousal privilege derives: a man and his wife must be free to discuss their affairs without fear of one being required to testify against the other, lest the marriage relationship be damaged. Again, business partners enjoy no such privilege, nor do very close friends, nor even siblings.

It is one thing to argue that consenting adult homosexual couples, and polygamist trios and quads, and other various intimate arrangements deserve some way to record their choice of "next-of-kin". It is quite another to attempt to rewrite history and culture as to why society has ever cared to take notice of, give special benefit to, or encourage marriage between a man and a woman.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

But what is it that makes society take any interest at all in an otherwise private relationship? Society doesn't care about my bridge club. They don't have any interest in the relationship between my best friend and me. It takes no real interest in my relationship with my business partner despite the fact that our financial fortunes are inextricably linked.

Ironically, the thing that gives society any real interest in my relationship, the thing that makes it of public concern, is the most private aspect of it: the act that brings children into the picture. Consenting adults can and do fend for themselves. But children are in a unique situation: They are not unto themselves, yet they are not merely property. Society has an interest in how the rising generation is raised, and a moral obligation to protect the weakest members of society, yet an equally strong moral requirement to respect the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit within the broadest limits possible. It is from the marriage bed itself that legal spousal privilege derives: a man and his wife must be free to discuss their affairs without fear of one being required to testify against the other, lest the marriage relationship be damaged. Again, business partners enjoy no such privilege, nor do very close friends, nor even siblings.

It is one thing to argue that consenting adult homosexual couples, and polygamist trios and quads, and other various intimate arrangements deserve some way to record their choice of "next-of-kin". It is quite another to attempt to rewrite history and culture as to why society has ever cared to take notice of, give special benefit to, or encourage marriage between a man and a woman.

Charles

Click to expand...

Bull crap. It's the same thing that drives the gov to accept illegal immigrants with open arms: we are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt.

Any pyramid scam need more people at the bottom, than at the top.

It ain't morals, it's MONEY!

Dave_pro2a said:

Bull crap. It's the same thing that drives the gov to accept illegal immigrants with open arms: we are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt.

Any pyramid scam need more people at the bottom, than at the top.

It ain't morals, it's MONEY!

Click to expand...

I find your answer to be a non-sequitor to my post.

Furthermore, if morals are subjective, that must apply to "morals" derived from "objectivism" as well, which means you have no more claim on absolute morality--since there is none--than do the totalitarians.

Yet again, a sterling example of (anti-religious) bigotry leading to self-defeating small mindedness that would be eminently obvious to anyone not clouded by hatred and bigotry.

Dave, with every attempt to attack sincere religious beliefs simply because they are religious, you look more foolish. You really should avoid posting from a position of hatred.

Charles

Dave_pro2a said:

If you support tax funded marriage benefits, you're a Marxists and a statist.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the liberal conflation of not taxing (as much) with actual tax funded benefits. Such a view can be sustained only if one believes all money belongs to the government. Then any money not taken from us is a "tax funded benefit".

As for the personal, childish insults, sure evidence that the bigots have nothing of substance to add.

Emphatic assertion and personal insults. Are these the tactics you thought would protect and advance RKBA in your home State? No wonder you are in such trouble. Major losses on your watch Dave. Yet you so hate someone with a long history of successes on RKBA that you'd rather engage in perpetual sniping than to consider on what tactics might work better for you. You hate your enemies (as you deem me and all religion) more than you love your own rights. The results are sadly predictable. True bigots are so full of hate they are blind to their own folly.

Go in peace man. But do find peace, I hope.

Charles

Dave_pro2a said:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusions+of+grandeur

Click to expand...

Shall we compare the totality of your State's laws on guns and those of Utah? Yet you hate me and Utah. Why? What "objective" reason have you for your hatred?

You continue to dive immediately to the personal on every exchange. Stick to the issues and leave personality out of it. If you can't do that, don't respond at all.

Charles

Dave_pro2a said:

I'm not responsible for my state gun laws, yet you clearly claim to be responsible for yours.
--moderator deleted quoted personal attack--

Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but charles has been quite active in utah in helping get pro-rkba legislation passed into law.


But don't let me stop you from keeping this ad hominem going.

J_dazzle23 said:

--snipped--

But don't let me stop you from keeping this ad hominem going.

Click to expand...

Yes it does........and the price just went up.

utbagpiper said:

As is mine. Is it moral to pursue a theoretically pure agenda at the real cost of liberty, happiness, prosperity, peace, and other desirable ends within society? Or is moral to support a less pure social theory if it yields better results for the community and for individuals within it?



I assume you write from mere misunderstanding. I've not suggested imposing on others to improve my condition. Rather, I propose that certain limits on what anarchists would desire may well be better for all of society and even the individual who feels put upon.

Regardless, accusing someone of being "immoral" is a loaded term that should be avoided. Were I to throw around that word based on my personal views of morality no doubt lots of folks here would take mighty offense. It is no less polite for you to use that word simply because your morality derives from a non-theist source.

Charles

Click to expand...

1. It is moral to do what is right even if that results in loss, or even if doing what's wrong results in gain. I believe the Bible is perfectly clear about this.
2. You have spent many words advocating imposition, use of force, and hierarchy. It does not matter who you believe benefits, nor how many.
3. Your statement, "Rather, I propose that certain limits on what anarchists would desire may well be better for all of society and even the individual who feels put upon," stinks of those ideas which say some are so gifted as to be right in ruling over others and doing whatever action might perpetuate that rule, even including outright lying or whatever else, viewing those under rule as subordinate morally and especially intellectually. It isn't for you to decide what is better for another and use force on them to make it so. Nor can you justify using force against another as "it's for their own good".
4. Identifying a philosophy as immoral is not loaded and there is no reason to avoid identifying immorality.
5. "My morality" is not derived from non-theist sources.

utbagpiper said:

If your goal is to prove I'm wrong, or to simply express your disgust that different views of society exist, we can stop discussing now. I'm not interested in any more endless debates where one tries to catch another in some error of words. And accusing me of immorality over holding such views is not the way to encourage civil or useful discussion. Neither is suggesting that consistency has no value to me. I've said it is less important than some other things, not that it has no value at all.

Click to expand...

stealthyeliminator said:

Merely behaving according to any belief contrary to your or your community's preferences or beliefs is imposing that contrary belief on you or your community? How in the world could you possibly reconcile this view with your anti-discrimination views?

The contradiction practically jumps out of the page.

[...]

But since consistency isn't important, I guess you don't care how contradictory your views are. As long as you get the results, right? Cause ends justify means, and all that? The immorality makes me queasy.

Click to expand...

I did not attempt to suggest that consistency is of no value to you. My suggestion was that consistency is not important enough to significantly influence your decisions, meaning, pointing out inconsistencies in your views will not deter you from them. My suggestion was that you may be ok with inconsistencies in your views.

LOl.....oh its for the children....hahahaha were have I heard that before.......

Oops society benefited from legalized abortion, crime rates have plummeted.

sudden valley gunner said:

LOl.....oh its for the children....hahahaha were have I heard that before.......

Oops society benefited from legalized abortion, crime rates have plummeted.

Click to expand...

Hehehe.

Lets ignore the possible implications of taking away a right to life because of the "greater good"

Where have I heard this before???

Oh that's right.

"Lets limit your gun ownership. It's for the *greater good*"