August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Denny347]

So not to get this locked for everyone else, I will not go any further. It is not my thread and I am sorry for the hijack.

 

[Denny347]

Glad I tuned in!

Thanks.

From where do the rights of man come?

OK ok, my LAST post here..again, I do not want this lock because of me. Rights of man come from....MAN. Where else could it have? Again, I think this path has gone further than we could have imagined and any further will close it down for you guys.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

See above^^^

I'm sure eight million Jews and 6 million Catholics, Gypsies, and homosexuals exterminated by Adolf Hitler's Germany would agree with you. So would the 20 million Ukranians starved and killed by Josef Stalin's boys. Seven million Cambodians would probably agree with you, if they could; so would the 30 or so million Chinese who didn't make it through the Cultural Revolution. The City Fathers of Carthage are in total agreement with you, as are most of the former inhabitants of the Mongol Horde's territories. Yep, altruism is genetic in humans and always triumphs.

Your belief as expressed by your post is more a "fairy tale" than any religion I know of because, while there may be altruism inherent in the human character, there is also great evil inherent in the human character as well. Your 'pitiable belief' in the ascendant altruism of human character is vastly outshone by the depravities inherent in human nature, as characterized by our fascination with the atrocities of history rather than the everyday goodness of the "peasants".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So not to get this locked for everyone else, I will not go any further. It is not my thread and I am sorry for the hijack.

Don't go away, we're still trying to address the idea that humanism is somehow more perceptible than "religion" (not to discuss any particular religion or religious activity; we're addressing the subject of the origin of community "morals" and how they address the concepts of "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of speech").

So as to not run afoul of the rules, let's leave out all future mention of the concept of "sin", please.

 

[Jim Duncan]

Rights of man come from....MAN.

Thank you.

So your rights are what other men say they are.

Locke is shaking his head.
Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
Tocqueville is saying, "I told you so."

Thank you for your response and your honesty in your response.

Both are much appreciated.

 

[terrehautian]

So how many people have lost facebook "friends" on this issue? I think I am up to four or five. Frankly, I don't care anymore. I tolerate the posts from the other side and I expect the other side to tolerate the occasional post I do.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So how many people have lost facebook "friends" on this issue? I think I am up to four or five. Frankly, I don't care anymore. I tolerate the posts from the other side and I expect the other side to tolerate the occasional post I do.

What is this "facebook" of which you speak?

 

[CarmelHP]

Religions are fairy tales. Laws are created by man in order to allow us to live in social societies as peacefully as possible.

According to your assertions, both come from man. Both ascribe certain penalties to particular acts deemed not acceptable. Again, why should one have any more validity than the other except for your preference? I'm sure that more people in this country will subscribe to "trusting God" rather than trusting almighty Government. Why should we prefer the moral code that ascribes its origins only to the legislative process? Why not a King or dictator as the origin of law for that matter? What is the goal other than deconstructing this society? All "progressives" wish to deconstruct society in order to control whatever replaces it. Its been the goal throughout the 20th and 21st century from Marx to Lenin to Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot to all the other scum of history since.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If gay marriage is legalized, you'll have to get a divorce and marry a dude.

2 adults consenting to each other doesn't create a victim. Raping and stealing does.

If you are not the victim of rape or theft, then how do those acts affect you?

Why should we turn the state loose on people that rape or steal from other people?

 

[CarmelHP]

Altruism is innate in humans (obviously there are exceptions).

Hundreds of millions purposedly starved or executed show that this is a fable taught by a fool to an idiot.* Man is cruel, selfish, craven, and weak as a rule, as all of history is witness.





(*for clarity, not referring to any particular individual here, just to highlight the obvious fallacy of the belief)

 

[Mark 1911]

Posted this reply to IndyDave in another thread, but somehow seems appropriate here too!

 

[RockofStrength]

Hundreds of millions purposedly starved or executed show that this is a fable taught by a fool to an idiot.* Man is cruel, selfish, craven, and weak as a rule, as all of history is witness.





(*for clarity, not referring to any particular individual here, just to highlight the obvious fallacy of the belief)

If I may provide an example of the above:

70 A.D.: Jerusalem. The high-minded, well-educated, relatively wealthy Israelites under Roman rule have begun a Jewish insurrection against Roman authority largely owing to strong nationalistic pride, among other things. The Romans respond by besieging Jerusalem, whereupon the conditions in the city become so terrible that all these wonderful, religious, high-minded people start eating each other. The Romans wait the people out, then they break through the walls and slaughter over 1 million people, burn the city to the ground, and melt the holy buildings down in order to steal the gold in the bricks. The blood ran in literal rivers out of the city.

People are not altruistic by nature: it is taught to them as a counterpoint to their natural viewpoint. Apart from an outside influence, people will revert to that nature when it is no longer convenient to appear "civilized" or "merciful". Modernity hides a good deal of man's baser nature because his basic needs (food, sleep, intimacy) are easily dealt with peaceably by means essentially out of his hands.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Posted this reply to IndyDave in another thread, but somehow seems appropriate here too!

Sorta puts a different spin on one of Rev. Wright's sermons where he so poignantly exclaimed: "The chickennnnnns are coming home......to roost !"

 

[Mark 1911]

Sorta puts a different spin on one of Rev. Wright's sermons where he so poignantly exclaimed: "The chickennnnnns are coming home......to roost !"

If (when?) the chickens come home to roost in Mayor Rahm's town, I suppose he'll have to eat more crow!

 

[GBuck]

Sorry, we weren't discussing the many ways in which humans fail to live up to the ideals they aspire to, we were discussing the history (or lack thereof) of "gay marriage" relative to the thousands of years of history of "marriage" being between a man and a woman.

Yup, you're right... And for thousands of years it was perfectly fine for one human being to OWN another, and treat them however they saw fit. For centuries in this country we had slavery, it was the "socially accepted norm" that you're referring to. We also didn't let black men or any women vote for a LONG time. Any of these socially accepted norms you would like to go back to being enforced? After all, black men make up a much smaller percentage (especially back then) of our population than white men. We shouldn't change for a small percentage, right?

 

[Mark 1911]

Yup, you're right... And for thousands of years it was perfectly fine for one human being to OWN another, and treat them however they saw fit. For centuries in this country we had slavery, it was the "socially accepted norm" that you're referring to. We also didn't let black men or any women vote for a LONG time. Any of these socially accepted norms you would like to go back to being enforced? After all, black men make up a much smaller percentage (especially back then) of our population than white men. We shouldn't change for a small percentage, right?

Seem to be missing a key point here. Slavery goes againt human dignity, it was a sin against humanity that was very slow in being eliminated from our culture. It went against human dignity. Do we want to condone another form of sin against human dignity? Every argument for equal treatment of gays, and arguments for gay marrige, have implicit in them the assumption or premise that homosexual behavior is as acceptable as any other form of human companionship. Those of us who beleive that homosexual behavior is objectively wrong, i.e. sinful, are then labeled as bigots by those who want us to accept what we believe to be wrong as something that is "just as normal". Sin is in essence slavery, it keeps the human spirit from attaining to it full dignity. That is why these discussions are somewhat pointless. The two sides will never meet. There is only one true evil in this world, and that is sin. Men are all capable of turning away from sin. All men are called to turn away from sin, not to make an alliance with it. Why do we feel compelled to call what is wrong right? Every man has his own struggle with sin, every single man. Why should being gay give a man or a woman a license that no other person has? Every man is capable of love and dignity, that involves mastery of self. If I say to a man who has an inclination to gamble or drink to excess so that it destroys his family, his marriage, his finances, if I say to him that he should not do those things, am I being hateful, or am I trying to help him realize his true dignity and freedom?

 

[sepe]

Seem to be missing a key point here. Slavery goes againt human dignity, it was a sin against humanity that was very slow in being eliminated from our culture. It went against human dignity. Do we want to condone another form of sin against human dignity? Every argument for equal treatment of gays, and arguments for gay marrige, have implicit in them the assumption or premise that homosexual behavior is as acceptable as any other form of human companionship. Those of us who beleive that homosexual behavior is objectively wrong, i.e. sinful, are then labeled as bigots by those who want us to accept what we believe to be wrong as something that is "just as normal". Sin is in essence slavery, it keeps the human spirit from attaining to it full dignity. That is why these discussions are somewhat pointless. The two sides will never meet. There is only one true evil in this world, and that is sin. Men are all capable of turning away from sin. All men are called to turn away from sin, not to make an alliance with it. Why do we feel compelled to call what is wrong right? Every man has his own struggle with sin, every single man. Why should being gay give a man or a woman a license that no other person has? Every man is capable of love and dignity, that involves mastery of self. If I say to a man who has an inclination to gamble or drink to excess so that it destroys his family, his marriage, his finances, if I say to him that he should not do those things, am I being hateful, or am I trying to help him realize his true dignity and freedom?

I'm thinking churches should ease up a bit on speaking out against homosexuals until they can reign in the priests, pastors, and preachers molesting young boys. It is kind of, and by kind of I mean REALLY stupid, for people to judge consenting adults while people that they look up to are doing similar activities with those under the age of consent. I believe you lose the ability to talk about dignity regarding the issue until the church sex scandals (and it isn't just the Catholic church) are completely eliminated.