Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Supreme Court to hear two gay marriage cases next year


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 527 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:24:00 AM PST
Nightmare says:
Groovy, dude.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:25:12 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:28:07 AM PST
Our modern personal assessments of their actions deems it wrong in hindsight.

At the time it may have not been viewed as such.

Our viewpoints are ever changing as the moral Zeitgeist evolves over time. Even the way in which the writings of the Bible are interpreted....See the King James translations or the additions/revisions courtesy of the canonical processes for further evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:27:47 AM PST
Not according to them it wasn't. In fact as I remember correctly Human Sacrifices were accepted and used to appease deities, among other things. Weather I agree with them or not, that's what they did. And at the same time I'm sure they had individuals who were against it too, perhaps that's part of the reason it's so frowned upon now. Someone has to stick up for what they believe in, because it was different than the norm of the society.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:27:55 AM PST
Nightmare says:
So it wasn't wrong? Yes or no.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:28:57 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:31:16 AM PST
I've answered your question - Feel free to refer to my last message.

I'm not having an argument with you about your clinginess to absolutes....I had to repeat this twice during our last conversation, lol.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:31:14 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:32:26 AM PST
Nightmare says:
I think the issue gets down to this: you want to say that it was wrong, but it would completely contradict what you've been saying this entire time. And you don't want to admit that it was ok by your view, because others might have a problem with that.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:31:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:32:51 AM PST
...So now you're presupposing my thoughts?

Tell me - What do I want for dinner tonight?

I answered your question quite clearly in my last message. I'm sorry that you cannot free yourself from this illusion of absolutism.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:32:52 AM PST
Nightmare says:
I'm guessing. Am I right?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:32:58 AM PST
Soulshine says:
I think you're unwilling to say equal rights for gays is right, which makes no goddamn sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:35:02 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:38:45 AM PST
Not in the slightest :)

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what I've said.

Here's what I stated previously:

"Our modern personal assessments of their actions deems it wrong in hindsight.

At the time it may have not been viewed as such.

Our viewpoints are ever changing as the moral Zeitgeist evolves over time. Even the way in which the writings of the Bible are interpreted....See the King James translations or the additions/revisions courtesy of the canonical processes for further evidence."

Which part of this don't you understand?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:36:27 AM PST
Well if that's true than he and I are going to have a nice little chat... *Cracks his knuckles*

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:37:30 AM PST
Nightmare says:
I have no problem with equal rights for gays. They should have the same legal rights that we all have. But I don't think that marriage should be a legal right/issue at all (as I said previously).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:39:06 AM PST
Soulshine says:
So then gays should be allowed to get married everywhere, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:39:13 AM PST
Then let me ask, what should it be?

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 10:41:54 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
So, if history has no effect on morality what so ever, how is it that a person's moral viewpoint evolves and changes throughout their life?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:42:48 AM PST
Nightmare says:
So, if society in the future believed it was ok to commit human sacrifice and rape, would it be ok then?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:47:38 AM PST
Nightmare says:
I consider marriage to be a religious institution. I'm not really sure what it means apart from that, other than committing yourself to another person. If gays want to commit themselves to each other, they have every right to do so. If there is another definition that you're using, let me know.

"Then let me ask, what should it be?"

Like I said earlier, it should be an individual issue, based upon what I say right above this.

"So, if history has no effect on morality what so ever, how is it that a person's moral viewpoint evolves and changes throughout their life?"

History has an effect on what people perceive to be morality, but I wouldn't call that morality in any sense of the word as I use it. Since you perceive morality to be a functional issue with society, I can't disagree that history teaches us how to be functionally more efficient. But morality as I see it is set, and therefore it can't be changed.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:52:01 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
" consider marriage to be a religious institution. I'm not really sure what it means apart from that, other than committing yourself to another person. If gays want to commit themselves to each other, they have every right to do so. If there is another definition that you're using, let me know."

Here you go, buddy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJN-xCA0qI&list=UUIfaK23JF8w-x7LBEtuX0eg&index=1

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:52:47 AM PST
Nightmare says:
What is the video about. I can't watch it right now.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:54:16 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:57:52 AM PST
My personal assessment is entirely separate from their moral compass - Regardless, viewing this objectively I would not agree with this.

I am uncertain as to how this really helps your case given my aforementioned example...Since I've answered your odd theoretical dichotomy, here's one of my own for you:

If in the future the bible is revised - as it has been many times - to advocate human sacrifice and rape, would it be okay? Furthermore - Imagine that all documentation prior to this revision has been completely destroyed.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:55:33 AM PST
"Nightmare says:
I consider marriage to be a religious institution."

That's fine, but know that marriage in no way belongs to Christianity. as marriage predates Christianity by thousands of years. For example, my wife and I got married and it had nothing to do with any god. Do you have a problem with my marriage?

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 10:55:44 AM PST
"I consider marriage to be a religious institution."

So then lets go on this. I am an Atheist, I don't believe in anything and chose that. Does this mean That I should have to change my believes if I want to get married, if we change it to a religion thing?

Marriage gives advantages apart from love, it helps with taxes, income, and if your a military family, you are allowed to get information about your spouce when he/she is deployed over seas. i know that my cousin got married a little sooner than expected because his now fiance wanted to know how he was doing when he was deployed, they couldn't unless they were married.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:55:57 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
A discussion on the definition of marriage from a very sharp and intelligent man, and a former Seminarian no less. It's worth your time to watch when you can.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:56:10 AM PST
Jeebus, this was very good. I feel bad that I hated you for some reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 10:57:48 AM PST
Nightmare says:
Ok, I'll just accept that I don't understand your view of morality and leave it at that.

If the Bible was revised to accept such things, it would not change what is actually morally just (from a Biblical perspective). Can you give me evidence that the Bible has been significantly changed from its original form, and that you can't possibly know what the original writings actually said?
‹ Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 22 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  527
Initial post:  Dec 7, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions