And it isn't irrelevant in this case - being bullied about being gay was what drove this CHILD to suicide.

The idea that you're going to push acceptance of homosexuality to combat bullying is indeed entirely irrelevant. It doesn't get to the root of the problem. Showing respect to an individual regardless of his alleged sexual preferences doesn't require that I accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle.

That's not what I'm trying to convey at all. There are a million things kids will bully about and all of it sickens me equally. I found that article, it bothered me greatly, and I asked a simple (somewhat rhetorical, I'm sorry you missed that) question. Why is it so hard for people to accept other people's lifestyles? And no, not just that of a gay person. I'm not here attacking anybody, I'm not saying that all bullying leads directly back to homosexuality, or that acceptance of homosexuality is the answer to the meaning of life. I'm asking why two 11 year old boys were bullied to the point where they felt there was no other option than to hang themselves.

Why is it so hard for people to accept other people's lifestyles? And no, not just that of a gay person.

My point is that you can treat people with respect without accepting their respective lifestyles, whatever they happen to be. The word "acceptance" in the modern context implies moral approval.

That's just it though. If kids think that homosexuality is wrong, they associate wrong with what's considered "not good" or "not normal." Bullying is usually directed at people that are considered "different" or "not normal", and even if the person isn't a homosexual, people will still call you a faggot or a dyke, even though you could be the farthest thing from a homosexual. It's the negative association that goes with the insults that bullies use, not necessarily the definition. If children see their parents talking about homosexuals with such angry passion and fury about how they don't belong in this world and what they do "is just not normal and right", you can't rule out the chance that a link will be made between the two. A child comes home crying because he's being called gay, when he's not. What do you do? You can't prove that you're not to the bullies. They'll tell you that you're just doing it to prove them wrong. You can't do anything to affirm their insults, because it makes it worse. It's not going to matter if the bullies get suspended or detention. It's not going to change their beliefs. If anything, there's a higher chance of them getting angry at the reason why they're in detention, which is not because they got caught, but because there's someone out of place in their midst and they're not going away.

Dealing with bullying is a much harder issue than people make it out to be, regardless of why a person is being bullied. It's done subtly. Nowadays, there are more methods and means to. Nowadays, it's harder for people to see how it's affecting individuals. What's interesting is that with all new forms of communication (internet, cell phones, e-mail, TV etc. etc) bullying and harassment has moved outside the school environment and into the homes and lives of people.

That's just it though. If kids think that homosexuality is wrong, they associate wrong with what's considered "not good" or "not normal."

Children are taught that lots of behaviors are wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean that they're going to attack an individual who engages in said behavior. They bully individuals because they are different, not because of their moral perceptions of the individual's behavior. If that were true, then all of the bad kids who cut up in class would get bullied every day, but instead they're considered the "cool kids." Children who are perceived to be homosexuals are attacked for the same reason the kid with the disability is attacked--they're perceived to be weak.

To say that I shouldn't teach my children biblical morality for fear that they will beat up homosexuals is completely ridiculous. You're making a series of judgments and assumptions that are simply not warranted. The teaching of sexual ethics and morality does not, by definition, require that we not teach the dignity of each individual.

children see their parents talking about homosexuals with such angry passion and fury about how they don't belong in this world and what they do "is just not normal and right", you can't rule out the chance that a link will be made between the two.

Again, this is another ridiculous assumption and an attempt to build a straw-man, assuming that this is how all Christian parents address the issue of homosexuality in front of their children. This perception of Christians is not only inaccurate, but downright insulting.

A child comes home crying because he's being called gay, when he's not. What do you do?

Do you honestly think government schools indoctrinating children with pro-homosexual propaganda is going to ameliorate this situation?

Children are taught that lots of behaviors are wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean that they're going to attack an individual who engages in said behavior. They bully individuals because they are different, not because of their moral perceptions of the individual's behavior.

Exactly what I said, but worded differently. Also, I neglected to add the word "may" between 'they' and 'associate'. My bad.

Again, this is another ridiculous assumption and an attempt to build a straw-man, assuming that this is how all Christian parents address the issue of homosexuality in front of their children. This perception of Christians is not only inaccurate, but downright insulting.

The fact that you've put words in my mouth and assumed that I've directed my response towards christians when I've made NO reference of religion in that response is inaccurate, and downright appalling.

They bully individuals because they are different, not because of their moral perceptions of the individual's behavior. If that were true, then all of the bad kids who cut up in class would get bullied every day, but instead they're considered the "cool kids." Children who are perceived to be homosexuals are attacked for the same reason the kid with the disability is attacked--they're perceived to be weak.

Here is where I introduce you to the idea of "context-specific" statements. The problem you're displaying is the need for things to be applied universally. One could call it "enlightening me to the full extent and application of my words." I call it "Bullshit", "twisting words around" and "failure to accept that some things don't always have to have a universal application." The first rule you should learn is that not everything has a universal application or needs to be applied universally. This case is one of them. People are attacked because they're perceived to be weak. But see, you can't even make that statement without exceptions. Most of my experience in Elementary school all the way up to High School and into college is that nobody picks on the kid with a serious disability. It's not cool to make fun of the autistic kids, not to mention the fact that they've always got aides and assistants with them. It is okay, however, to pick on the quiet kid who sits in the corner and reads all the time, because there's an opportunity to do so. No teacher or authority have given a specific order to leave him or her alone. The disabled students have the "off-limits" immunity about them from being bullied or teased. The functional, but otherwise "weird" however, are still fair game. This isn't a definite, but rather an example to think about. Also, may I ask what were you in school? The bully, the bullied, or the ones who were neither? In Elementary school and middle school, I was the social outcast. I was always teased and made fun of. I was the one who sat alone at lunch. I was the one who was always the teacher's pet because I felt safer in their presence than amongst my peers. I messed up a line during a school play in first grade, and people never stopped telling me how I ruined the play until the end of elementary school. However, another one of my classmates messed up during a school performance the following year. Brandon was considered one of the "popular kids". Nobody ever acknowledged his slip up for forgetting his lines, while mine haunted me for awhile.

To say that I shouldn't teach my children biblical morality for fear that they will beat up homosexuals is completely ridiculous. You're making a series of judgments and assumptions that are simply not warranted

Actually, it's you who is taking my words and using their applicability to the furthest, and most negative extent, to prove your point. Teaching your children proper biblical morality would be telling them that homosexuality is inherently wrong and looked down upon by god, however, it's not your childrens' place to judge and throw stones (figuratively) but rather god's place to judge their actions when the time comes. Cast pity on those who cannot see the light and change their actions, but do not hate or loathe them.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. I don't write with the intent to cover all my bases and make arguments or statements completely rock solid. If there's any inconsistencies, please feel free to point them out. I'll be glad to correct your interpretations of what I'm saying.

The fact that you've put words in my mouth and assumed that I've directed my response towards christians when I've made NO reference of religion in that response is inaccurate, and downright appalling.

Absolutely not. You were responding to my comments in which the context was with respect to a Christian worldview. So while you *technically* didn't mention religion, it was certainly implicit in your statements to whom your statements were directed. So please don't insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise. A thinly-veiled attack is still an attack.

Here is where I introduce you to the idea of "context-specific" statements. The problem you're displaying is the need for things to be applied universally. One could call it "enlightening me to the full extent and application of my words." I call it "Bullshit", "twisting words around" and "failure to accept that some things don't always have to have a universal application."

I am not at fault because of your inability to properly communicate ideas. If you wanted to change the context of the discussion, then you should have alluded to that instead of jumping into a conversation without giving any foundational basis for your arguments other than what was offered. I am not a mind-reader and no one else on this forum is either.

Most of my experience in Elementary school all the way up to High School and into college is that nobody picks on the kid with a serious disability. It's not cool to make fun of the autistic kids, not to mention the fact that they've always got aides and assistants with them.

Your anecdotal experiences certainly differ from mine. I would say it depends upon the disability and the individuals involved. I've had a speech impediment all my life and that never stopped anyone from making fun of me. I'm 25 years old and people still laugh at me, mostly grown adults.

Also, may I ask what were you in school? The bully, the bullied, or the ones who were neither?

I think my previous statement answers your questions.

Actually, it's you who is taking my words and using their applicability to the furthest, and most negative extent, to prove your point

It's funny that you accuse me of this since you in fact took the absolute worst extreme possible with respect to Christians and made that sound like the norm. I'm only taking your argument to its logical extension, something which you should have been prepared to do yourself before you made it. I see your statements as an implicit attack on people of faith who happen to believe that homosexuality is immoral. If I'm wrong, then you ought to seriously consider how you word your arguments in the future.

Teaching your children proper biblical morality would be telling them that homosexuality is inherently wrong and looked down upon by god, however, it's not your childrens' place to judge and throw stones (figuratively) but rather god's place to judge their actions when the time comes. Cast pity on those who cannot see the light and change their actions, but do not hate or loathe them.

Once again, another ridiculous assumption. Why is it automatically assumed that any children I would have would act like that? This is what I'm talking about. You automatically assume the worst about your opponents and judge them before they even act. And you want to sit there and lecture me on judgment? You don't know anything about me, yet you automatically cast me in a negative light. I don't understand this.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. I don't write with the intent to cover all my bases and make arguments or statements completely rock solid. If there's any inconsistencies, please feel free to point them out. I'll be glad to correct your interpretations of what I'm saying.

You don't have to be a lawyer to learn how to properly communicate ideas. Making solid arguments and clearly stating ideas is indicative of someone who cares enough about their audience to make sure everyone is one the same page. I'm certainly not getting that from you.

Well then, let me communicate my true feelings on this, because it will make it all nice and simple.

One day, when the time comes, I will settle down in my own house with my own lover, who will be a male.

When that day comes, I will be able to file my taxes jointly with him. I will get all of the legal benefits that "marriage" brings to straight couples, regardless of whatever name you wanna call it (This means tax cuts, ownership of estate and items should I die, benefits, life insurance policies, etc. etc.)

If you're someone who would stand against that, well then, you're going to have to just grin and bear it. The fight against same-sex partnership based on religious ground WILL lose against a legal system that is supposed to be free from religious belief. It's only a matter of time. Wanna argue against same-sex partnerships and adoption by same sex couples? I've got a 12-page thesis with lovely and eloquently detailed (and scholarly) sources to blast your way.

Your thoughts and opinions on the matter are of no matter to me. Your entire existence is rather insignificant to me. You're another voice on the internet, same as myself. My wants and demands are in no way unreasonable, and just because you don't agree or share a different view on the topic isn't a valid reason for people to stand in my way. Period. End of discussion on my end. I hold no desire or will to argue with your kind, as you do mine. Both of us are just spouting words, knowing that we're not going to change the others opinion.

As for all of your responses above? All assumptions are based on past precedent, whether directly or indirectly observed. There's exceptions to everything darling. And feel free to take arguments to their logical extensions, but keep in mind that not everything was made to be drawn out to such a degree.

I really didn't want to get involved here, but I have to remind you that Josh isn't trying to impose theocratic views on anyone here. He wants to remove the government from marriage entirely. You can still live your beliefs, Josh can live his, I can live mine...it's very fair and equal. I haven't heard a more tolerant solution than his.

Then it's quite simple.

If his idea on the removal of marriage from the governmental system would leave behind a generic fallback option of legal partnership (not religious) to which I could enroll in, then there's no point in us conversing in the first place.

If his idea of removal of marriage from the government doesn't provide such an option however, of his idea just strips out any and all kinds of legal partnership PERIOD....well...that's a different story, and quite stupid. That is something that won't be done period, because you just can't remove a large chunk of legal code that defines a LOT of civil law.

If his idea of removal of marriage from the government doesn't provide such an option however, of his idea just strips out any and all kinds of legal partnership PERIOD....well...that's a different story, and quite stupid. That is something that won't be done period, because you just can't remove a large chunk of legal code that defines a LOT of civil law

Two questions...

1. Why is a defined legal partnership necessary given that we already have a general right of contract?

2. If legal issues are indeed a concern, then why do "civil unions" have to be exclusively tailored to romantic/sexual relationships?

In order to put these questions in better context, I offer the readers of this thread to see a discussion on my other blog in the comments section about this issue:

http://31oct1517.livejournal.com/69184.html

Somehow I get the feeling that the statist impluses within a lot of people are going ballistic over the notion that magistrates would have to surrender even a tiny bit of their power over the family sphere.

You truly do believe that you're sovereign over your own life, don't you? You arrogantly speak of things which "will" happen, as if the only will in the matter is your own. Whether these things happen in the future, that they come to pass is neither proof that your argument is correct nor does it provide the necessary framework for giving an ethical argument to the contrary. Indeed, it is only further evidence of what I have discussed at length regarding Providential wrath upon our civilization.

Simply put, human autonomy is a myth. Only a fool believes that he is really in charge of himself. We can strip civil government down to its barest foundations and maximize the level of freedoms we have, yet we still are not autonomous individuals. The heart of the reprobate prevents him from recognizing his own limits. His presuppositions are thus stuck in a materialistic realm in which he himself imposes his own laws. He becomes a law unto himself. We are deluding ourselves if we honestly think we are in charge of our own lives.

That you are able to commit these aforementioned sins with your "partner" only proves that God has given you over to judgment. Bragging about some future licentious conduct which you have yet to engage in does not prove your alleged autonomy. Quite the contrary, it only proves just how deep your judgment really is that you would be given over to such depravity. It goes well beyond the mere issue of rejecting God's law, but goes much deeper than that. For what I'm speaking of here is with respect to the heart, which is something no civil magistrate can bind.

What's really silly is that you sit there and speaking of perks being given you and your "partner" by the state as if that somehow proves your alleged autonomy. You think that feeding at the trough of the state somehow makes you free. Have you not even realized how everything you're arguing for in this discussion is entirely centered on the idea of magisterial domination over whole groups of people? This is the same lame argument I debunked on YouTube recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCsger9QqtA

It's so utterly Orwellian to hear the homosexual lobby speak of freedom when in fact they want to shackle themselves to the state. Even in your response to Christina below, your fervent desire is for further state intervention into a matter of which the state should never have been involved in the first place. The sphere of civil government has no business regulating the sphere of the family.

If you're someone who would stand against that, well then, you're going to have to just grin and bear it.

I don't have to do anything and I'm certainly not going to recognize same-sex "marriage" or any other equivalent. Are you advocating the magistrates force me to recognize this? Good luck with that...

The fight against same-sex partnership based on religious ground WILL lose against a legal system that is supposed to be free from religious belief.

You do realize, don't you, that our legal system is based upon certain Christian presuppositions? I'm not saying the Constitution is a Christian document or anything like that, but it cannot be denied that American jurisprudence is rooted in said principles, among others. Separation between church and state does not mean separation between religion and state. The framers argued for the former, not the latter.

What you also fail to realize is that you yourself are making a de facto religious argument by arguing against the exclusivity of the current marriage definition. You're stating an opinion on what marriage *ought* to be, thus injecting a moralistic viewpoint into the discussion. Your religious/philosophical viewpoint may indeed win the day electorally, but that doesn't make it correct.

Wanna argue against same-sex partnerships and adoption by same sex couples? I've got a 12-page thesis with lovely and eloquently detailed (and scholarly) sources to blast your way.

Do you really think I'm scared by what some undergrad has written in his term paper? I don't care how long your paper is, how eloquent it might be, or how many "scholarly sources" you have. Why? Because I'm not an evidentialist. I'm arguing from the standpoint of presuppositionalism. I don't look to the natural world to determine ethics and that's not how public policy ought to be determined either. I have no doubt that you can rattle off a bunch of stats to "prove" something with respect to same-sex "marriage" and adoption by homosexuals. Whether those arrangements are functional in society doesn't tell any of us about whether those arragements are ethical.

Your thoughts and opinions on the matter are of no matter to me. Your entire existence is rather insignificant to me.

Then why are you engaging in this discussion? Why did you respond to my comments in the first place?

My wants and demands are in no way unreasonable, and just because you don't agree or share a different view on the topic isn't a valid reason for people to stand in my way. Period. End of discussion on my end.

There you go again with that nonsense about your mythical autonomy. You speak as though you actually have some kind of ultimate authority to demand these things. I can't imagine how draining it must be for you to *daily* suppress the truth. I can see it in how you write your responses. You try to speak with some authority which you know you don't have.

Do you honestly believe that your lifestyle will suddenly become acceptable because a state legislature votes your way? Or because public opinion swings in your direction? Do you really believe that the truth you keep suppressing every day is going to go away because all of the magistrates believe what you do? What a sad, pathetic existence that must be.

I hold no desire or will to argue with your kind, as you do mine.

My "kind"? That's an interesting choice of terminology. While I recognize the distinction between us, I still come from the same tangled mass of damned humanity as you and everyone else.

As for all of your responses above? All assumptions are based on past precedent, whether directly or indirectly observed.

Not really. I'm arguing from a particular set of presuppositions and you're doing the same.

There's exceptions to everything darling.

And what does that prove? How is that statement a reliable factor for determining ethics?

And feel free to take arguments to their logical extensions, but keep in mind that not everything was made to be drawn out to such a degree.

Translation: you don't want to have to deal with the logical and ethical implications of your arguments. It's so much easier for you to make arbitrary determinations about things, especially when it happens to be convenient.

Blah blah blah.

All I can do now is laugh.

How draining it must be to hold such intelligence in a society that really doesn't give a shit. ;)

How draining it must be to hold such intelligence in a society that really doesn't give a shit.

Your valid point about society only proves the Apostle Paul's point in Romans chapter 1. We are now witnessing judgment. Moreover, you foolishly speak as though I really care what society thinks.

And no, it is not draining for me. I already saw this coming a long time ago.

Well congratulations on such perception, and whatever splendid A+'s you managed to get in your philosophy and religion classes you may have taken in your life.

Doesn't change the fact that you speak of God and religion with such a passion that one would be quick to assume you unquestionably (or even questionably in some circumstances) believe in the Christian faith. That alone is enough to debase your worth of words to me.

That alone is enough to debase your worth of words to me.

You speak as though I didn't know that already. Your contempt for God and His law is pretty clear for everyone to see.

You speak as though I didn't know that already. Your contempt for God and His law is pretty clear for everyone to see.

Not all of his law. Many of these "laws" are beliefs that I myself may hold onto. Many of them are ones that I don't care to incorporate into my life views. I see the Bible, and many other religious scriptures, as nothing more than guides to base one's perceptions and ideas on. Yes, this means that I do, in fact, pick and choose. And I see no real problem with picking and choosing in this context. Others might, but I don't. So long as I act in ways that do not harm another human being, and so long as I do not possess ill-will on humanity or malicious thoughts toward another, and so long as I respect my fellow man and do nothing to violate the privacy and personal affects of another, and act solely out of what I perceive to be good, honest and moral, I believe that whatever judgment I may face in the afterlife, assuming that there is one, will not be as harsh as some people claim it to be.

Not all of his law. Many of these "laws" are beliefs that I myself may hold onto. Many of them are ones that I don't care to incorporate into my life views. I see the Bible, and many other religious scriptures, as nothing more than guides to base one's perceptions and ideas on. Yes, this means that I do, in fact, pick and choose. And I see no real problem with picking and choosing in this context.

No, you do not in fact hold to any of God's law. It is impossible to adhere to a law when you reject the very Lawmaker who created those laws in the first place. You have only narcissistic reasons for technically obeying parts here and there, picking and choosing based upon your own wants and desires. In other words, you happen to fall into compliance with certain aspects of God's law only because it's convenient for you. By picking and choosing from each religion, you're basically saying that A) you don't have to take any of those worldviews seriously, and B) you really only have one devotion and that is to yourself.

So long as I act in ways that do not harm another human being, and so long as I do not possess ill-will on humanity or malicious thoughts toward another, and so long as I respect my fellow man and do nothing to violate the privacy and personal affects of another, and act solely out of what I perceive to be good, honest and moral, I believe that whatever judgment I may face in the afterlife, assuming that there is one, will not be as harsh as some people claim it to be.

And yet you offer no basis whatsoever for proclaiming what you've said above to be true. In the first place, there really is no census on what constitutes "harm" among the general public. Just ask a group of trial lawyers. The so-called "harm priniciple" is a nebulous web which itself has no real presuppositional foundation. For example, a Christian would say that there is harm done in the act of adultery by the betrayal of one's spouse. A philosophical naturalist would counter by saying there is no harm because no physical damage has been done to any of the parties in the situation--the man who is committing adultery is simply acting naturally by spreading his genotype to as many females as possible.

Bottom line: the "harm principle" rhetoric is only used as a philosophical cover to hide the fact that you have to borrow from other worldviews in order to cobble together a remotely coherent-sounding basis for ethics.

I pick and choose my beliefs just as much as you pick and choose the meaning of my words. You'd be surprised to find out that I'm quite a spiritual person, and I have my own interpretations on life and religion, both christian and otherwise. However, because such standards don't adhere to your definition of what a religious or spiritual person should be, they're erroneous?

You know what you're problem is? You're nothing more than a stereotypical christian hiding behind a ruse of overly superfluous words and "deep philosophical thinking and perception." You've done nothing thus far, in any argument I've witnessed, to show me that you're nothing more than someone who constantly picks apart other people and their perceptions. Don't give me the cocksnot bullshit answer of "enlightening other people to the full extent of their words", or any other possible long-winded, self-righteous statement to assert yourself as anything more than human,

Bottom line: I've yet to bring about harm or ill-will on/to the people in my life through any intentional or direct action, and thus far my beliefs on life, religion and my faith in other religious doctrines has not steered me wrong in my life at all. For you to insult the integrity and the seriousness of my world views makes you no better than I when I criticize other people and their religious beliefs themselves. Welcome to the percent of the population who judges and critiques.

Bottom Line: Put down the philosophy for dummies book. Quite being such an arrogant doucherag. Sometimes, you just can't provide a basis for truth or ethics, and you just have to take someone else's word on it. Interesting how you'd pick and choose to consider my reasons invalid but yet you'd devote your beliefs to a religion without proof as well.

Please, gain some empathy for humanity. Just because of differences between people and differences of standards doesn't make one's views any more or less valid than another, however it does open some up for criticism. I only one day hope you gain the knowledge and intelligence and freedom to remove yourself from such grounded and blind views on the world. As far as I'm concerned, my discussion with you is over.

Feel free to tear all the statements to shreds. Honestly, with how much you've bugged me, given the chance and possibly a lapse in my sanity, I wouldn't hesitate to do the same to your face. Whatever karmic debt I suffer for it would be my problem.

I pick and choose my beliefs just as much as you pick and choose the meaning of my words.

Oh, I see. It's okay for you to pick and choose from other worldviews and manipulate the original meanings of those words to suit you--but it's not okay when someone does that to you? Do you realize how much of a hypocrite you are? And I didn't pick and choose the meanings to your words, which is impossible because you never defined those words in the first place. Don't get pissed at me because you speak in vague generalities.

You'd be surprised to find out that I'm quite a spiritual person, and I have my own interpretations on life and religion, both christian and otherwise. However, because such standards don't adhere to your definition of what a religious or spiritual person should be, they're erroneous?

So what if you're spiritual? What does that prove? Is that supposed to represent some type of an argument?

You know what you're problem is? You're nothing more than a stereotypical christian hiding behind a ruse of overly superfluous words and "deep philosophical thinking and perception." You've done nothing thus far, in any argument I've witnessed, to show me that you're nothing more than someone who constantly picks apart other people and their perceptions.

Actually, I'm simply pursuing the discussion from the standpoint of presuppositionalism as opposed to evidentialist arguments. You obviously haven't picked up on this.

Bottom line: I've yet to bring about harm or ill-will on/to the people in my life through any intentional or direct action, and thus far my beliefs on life, religion and my faith in other religious doctrines has not steered me wrong in my life at all.

It's funny that you accuse me of being self-righteous (I didn't know this was about me), yet in this sentence above you set yourself up as some type of perfect being. I'm arrogant? You're claiming never to have caused any harm toward anyone in your entire life, directly. That is by far the most arrogant, self-righteous claim I've heard in quite a long time.

For you to insult the integrity and the seriousness of my world views makes you no better than I when I criticize other people and their religious beliefs themselves. Welcome to the percent of the population who judges and critiques.

You mean the worldview which you can't even articulate in a meaningful way? Kind of hard for me to criticize something that doesn't exist, unless you consider full-blown narcissism to be a worldview unto itself.

Bottom Line: Put down the philosophy for dummies book. Quite being such an arrogant doucherag.

I hate to say it, but I'm not really being philosophical very much at all. I'm far more theological than I am philosophical.

Sometimes, you just can't provide a basis for truth or ethics, and you just have to take someone else's word on it.

Speak for yourself on that. You can't even define your worldview, much less defend it. That's hard to do when you're forced to borrow from other worldviews as you have obviously done.

Interesting how you'd pick and choose to consider my reasons invalid but yet you'd devote your beliefs to a religion without proof as well.

Without proof? We're not in science class and we aren't analyzing empirical data. Truth and ethics cannot be measured or "proven" using the scientific method. Nor do I expect to convince a reprobate like you regarding the evidence which clearly points to the fact that the Triune God of the Bible lives. Your inherent depravity as a human being prevents that from happening apart from God's sovereign will.

Please, gain some empathy for humanity. Just because of differences between people and differences of standards doesn't make one's views any more or less valid than another, however it does open some up for criticism.

Really? I'm supposed to have empathy for the pagan cult which sacrifices children to Molech? I'm supposed to consider their beliefs just as valid as mine? I hate to break this to you, but truth actually does exist.

I only one day hope you gain the knowledge and intelligence and freedom to remove yourself from such grounded and blind views on the world.

Your choice of words is truly interesting given that you're a perfect example of Romans 1:18 manifested. You have suppressed the truth for so long that you have no clue how to think properly, evidenced by the fact that you're now lecturing me about how I ought to view the world. This, coming from someone who can't even clearly state what he believes and why he believes it.

Feel free to tear all the statements to shreds. Honestly, with how much you've bugged me, given the chance and possibly a lapse in my sanity, I wouldn't hesitate to do the same to your face. Whatever karmic debt I suffer for it would be my problem.

Low frustration tolerance...a common behavior associated with a lack of self-control, typical of homosexuals and other sexual degenerates. At any rate, I'll let your hateful comments speak for themselves.

Hypocrite. Yep. I agree. I fit the definition perfectly. Wanna know why? I'm a rather fluid person. I change my views on the world and society as time grows. There are a few things that I don't change, and those core values and beliefs are ones that make up the core of my existence. But the outer fringes are always up for change.

Actually, I'm simply pursuing the discussion from the standpoint of presuppositionalism as opposed to evidentialist arguments. You obviously haven't picked up on this.

I'm sorry. I couldn't see your intended goal. It's been hidden behind a word choice so think and riddled with superfluous vocabulary that makes Shakespeare's writings look like childrens picture books.

You're claiming never to have caused any harm toward anyone in your entire life, directly. That is by far the most arrogant, self-righteous claim I've heard in quite a long time.

I'm sorry. You're right. I have caused some physical harm to people. I am rather flawed, as are all humans in some ways. However, I've tried to make amends the best I can for the deeds that I'm aware of, and that is between me and the Universe's desire for equal balance.

I'm far more theological than I am philosophical.

That makes you and idiot.

We're not in science class and we aren't analyzing empirical data.

Really now? From the intensity of your analysis and replies to my words and those of others, I could have sworn otherwise.

Truth and ethics cannot be measured or "proven" using the scientific method.

I'm not even going to get started.

Your inherent depravity as a human being prevents that from happening apart from God's sovereign will.

And your inherent and unshakable faith in the Lord prevents you for ever holding the "What If" notion that God just might not exist, or if he does exist, it's on terms that are quite different from what the Pastor reads to you each Sunday. That same faith also automatically cuts out several paths of logic and reasoning that many people are able to access.

Really? I'm supposed to have empathy for the pagan cult which sacrifices children to Molech?

Respect the beliefs, not the actions. In a similar-but-not-so-similar was as to separating the actions from the person. Yes, someone might have stole, but it was out of desperation to help their sick child. However, could you blame such a person for their actions, if they grew up in a society of thievery and underhanded trickery?


This, coming from someone who can't even clearly state what he believes and why he believes it.

I've already told you, everything with me is context specific. I handle each situation differently than the next, and I treat each individual differently than others. I believe what I believe because of the experiences life has given me, and I believe what I believe because of what those experiences have taught me, and I draw on those past precedents in order to make a more solid future. I'm so sorry that you find my inability to retain solid ideals on the world unsatisfactory, but I'm not out to please you. I'm out to please those those people that impact my life positively. Sometimes, my motives are selfish, and I can be a bit arrogant. But what are you going to do about it? ....That's what I thought.

Low frustration tolerance...a common behavior associated with a lack of self-control, typical of homosexuals and other sexual degenerates.

Overly religious devotion, extreme intelligence (or good use of a thesaurus) shown through such passionate writing and usage of $5 dollar words and the thought you place behind them.....typical behaviors associated with those who had some struggles in their younger years and felt like turning to god would help them. I guess the only way someone like you could ever express yourself in a respectable manner would be through writing and religion. What other way to feel loved by God and be taken seriously with a speech impediment? Yeah. Hurts to be insulted just a bit, doesn't it?

Hypocrite. Yep. I agree. I fit the definition perfectly. Wanna know why? I'm a rather fluid person. I change my views on the world and society as time grows. There are a few things that I don't change, and those core values and beliefs are ones that make up the core of my existence. But the outer fringes are always up for change.

In other words, you really don't have any ethics whatsoever. You're a self-centered narcissist who adheres to whatever is convenient for you. All of this begs an important question: why are you even on this forum discussing anything at all? A true nihilist doesn't care about anything.

I'm sorry. I couldn't see your intended goal. It's been hidden behind a word choice so think and riddled with superfluous vocabulary that makes Shakespeare's writings look like childrens picture books.

So I'm to blame for your lack of education? Sorry pal, but you chose to engage in this discussion.

That makes you and idiot.

"And" idiot? If you're going to call me an idiot, then at least learn how to use proper grammar.

Really now? From the intensity of your analysis and replies to my words and those of others, I could have sworn otherwise.

Where did I bring "scientism" into the discussion? I have not. Last time I checked, this is a theological/philosophical discussion.

And your inherent and unshakable faith in the Lord prevents you for ever holding the "What If" notion that God just might not exist, or if he does exist, it's on terms that are quite different from what the Pastor reads to you each Sunday. That same faith also automatically cuts out several paths of logic and reasoning that many people are able to access

Your perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. I have absolutely no problem listening to what the other side says and I have contemplated plenty of "what if" questions. That's what good theologians do. And since you've never attended my church, I fail to see how you can say anything about what my pastor does or does not preach. In point of fact, he does indeed bring a lot of the "what if" questions into his preaching in order to examine other worldviews. There is no lack of logic or reasoning, for he could not accomplish his goals of proper exegesis without employing both along with sound hermeneutics.

Respect the beliefs, not the actions. In a similar-but-not-so-similar was as to separating the actions from the person.

That's my point, you cannot ultimately separate beliefs from actions. Ideas have consequences. Are we supposed to respect Nazism as a belief? We've seen what that worldview does in practice, which is why it is almost universally condemned.

Yes, someone might have stole, but it was out of desperation to help their sick child. However, could you blame such a person for their actions, if they grew up in a society of thievery and underhanded trickery?

Absolutely. The ends don't justify the means. Everyone is without execuse. Mankind is inherently depraved, not necessarily a product of a particular culture. Indeed, cultures are corrupt because mankind is corrupt, not the other way around.

Sometimes, my motives are selfish, and I can be a bit arrogant. But what are you going to do about it? ....That's what I thought.

Why are you making this about me? I know full well that I cannot change your heart. Never claimed that I could. I am powerless to do such a thing.

Overly religious devotion, extreme intelligence (or good use of a thesaurus) shown through such passionate writing and usage of $5 dollar words and the thought you place behind them.....typical behaviors associated with those who had some struggles in their younger years and felt like turning to god would help them.

Overly religious devotion? How is that defined? That's purely subjective and you know it. Extreme intelligence? I would never say that about myself, but I don't think using college-level language is unfit for discourse--especially with someone who has such prowess writing term papers and such. Did I have struggles during my younger years? I don't exactly know what you mean by that (again, a failure to properly define your ideas), but I suppose that could be true. Then again, most people in general have struggles at some point in their lives. I don't see what this has to do with my religious beliefs. Most of the people I've known who had serious struggles in their younger years are not Christians. Some are, others are not. Either way, I don't think it's relevant.

And by the way, I didn't turn to God. I don't view Christianity as "helpful" or something that "works" for me. Don't assume everyone views everything pragmatically like you do. I didn't find God...He found me.

I guess the only way someone like you could ever express yourself in a respectable manner would be through writing and religion. What other way to feel loved by God and be taken seriously with a speech impediment? Yeah. Hurts to be insulted just a bit, doesn't it?

God doesn't love me because of anything I write or any religious devotion on my part. His love is unconditional just as His election is. I don't know why God decided to put this thorn upon me via my speech impediment, but it is there. I trust that it's there for a good reason. He is sovereign over my life and I will not dispute such things. He is the Potter and I am the clay.

Of course I don't see what my speech impediment has to do with this discussion, except perhaps for you to make a cheap shot. Given your low self-control (i.e. lack of frustration tolerance), it doesn't surprise me that you would stoop to such depths. But then, that's what people of your ilk do when they don't have a substantive argument.

Hurts to be insulted just a bit, doesn't it?

How did I insult you previously? I simply oberved keenly that you do indeed fit the profile of individuals who lack self-control. You revealed as much in your hateful, bigoted rant in which you threatened me with violence. I just call it as I see it. That's not an insult, but you chose to take it as such because you know it's true. Insults do indeed hurt, but the truth hurts even more...doesn't it?

Why are you even on this forum discussing anything at all? A true nihilist doesn't care about anything.

It would be because I'm not a nihilist, dumbass. And yes, I do possess quite a few ethics and morals. You keep stating this, but you have yet to really put any good reason or evidence as to why you think that, other than this argument and the words I've typed, which are such a small part of me and my expression.

Where did I bring "scientism" into the discussion?

You didn't. Science and research requires cold hard facts and analysis, one of which you ask for and the other of which you heavily apply.

So I'm to blame for your lack of education?

Nope. You're to blame for choosing to "take the high road" and dress up something that could be said easily with rather unnecessary words. Sorry, but when I have to crack out a Thesaurus to decipher a paragraph, the speaker is either very full of themselves and overly loquacious, or they're banking on confusing and intimidating the other.

That's my point, you cannot ultimately separate beliefs from actions.

Maybe for you. I do it all the time and with little effort. It's why I've got such great social connections and am able to work with people so easily. I forgive easily and I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Your perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth.

Nope. Your answers are very Christian-based and biased. Even if an action or decision would be highly logical and rational, if it even slightly rubbed against the church the wrong way, or against your own values, your shield of resistance would immediately fly up.
How did I insult you previously? I simply oberved keenly that you do indeed fit the profile of individuals who lack self-control. You revealed as much in your hateful, bigoted rant in which you threatened me with violence. I just call it as I see it. That's not an insult, but you chose to take it as such because you know it's true. Insults do indeed hurt, but the truth hurts even more...doesn't it?

Don't assume everyone views everything pragmatically like you do.

Kinda hard when they all seem to drop into the mold eventually.

I don't know why God decided to put this thorn upon me via my speech impediment, but it is there.

Yeah....or you mother could have walked into a countertop on accident and your jaw got bumped.

How did I insult you previously? I simply oberved keenly that you do indeed fit the profile of individuals who lack self-control. You revealed as much in your hateful, bigoted rant in which you threatened me with violence. I just call it as I see it. That's not an insult, but you chose to take it as such because you know it's true. Insults do indeed hurt, but the truth hurts even more...doesn't it?

Honey, I'm going to put it plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's truth or not. An insulting comment is an insulting comment. You could tell a pregnant lady that she won't have to worry about the baby fat for too long and because she led an active lifestyle pre-pregnancy that she'll have no problem working it off, but the woman will still interpret it as you calling her a beached whale. And once she calls attention to it, trying to back out of it by saying "Oh, that's how YOU took it. Not my fault." doesn't save you one bit of face.

But then, that's what people of your ilk do when they don't have a substantive argument.

Likewise. Superfluous language and a haughty attitude that flows out into one's writing hints at just the same issue. You still failed to provide me a great reason as to why same-sex couples shouldn't be able to marry or enter a legal partnership, adopt children, and leave wills and estates and all the extras to each other like normal couples, other than a bunch of answers that all point back to religion, which ultimately will fail in court by itself.

It would be because I'm not a nihilist, dumbass.

I never said you were a nihilist, but that you argue like one. Frankly, I don't think you can make up your mind one way or another about what you believe. Hence, you're all over the map, sounding like one thing and then another. And by the way, since you can't act like an adult and treat me with respect, this will be my last communication to you. I'm not going to lower myself to discuss something with someone who resorts to name-calling. Grow up.

And yes, I do possess quite a few ethics and morals.

You may have morals, but you don't have ethics. There's a huge difference between the two concepts.

Nope. You're to blame for choosing to "take the high road" and dress up something that could be said easily with rather unnecessary words. Sorry, but when I have to crack out a Thesaurus to decipher a paragraph, the speaker is either very full of themselves and overly loquacious, or they're banking on confusing and intimidating the other.

I'm not dressing up anything. I'm speaking how I would normally speak to anyone else in a given setting. I'm speaking at a normal undergraduate level. Once again, your lack of basic education is not my fault. Just because you can't come up with a substantive argument to defend your unsustainable, narcissistic philosophy doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the way I speak.

Maybe for you. I do it all the time and with little effort.

Well, I guess since you don't really believe in much at all outside of wanting to alleviate your own desires, then I guess that isn't difficult.

Nope. Your answers are very Christian-based and biased.

Your point? Anyone who has an opinion on anything is biased, including you.

Even if an action or decision would be highly logical and rational, if it even slightly rubbed against the church the wrong way, or against your own values, your shield of resistance would immediately fly up.

Funny you say that since whatever you deem to be "logical" and "rational" is whatever you happen to agree with, the opinions of others be damned. Moreover, just because something may be logical or rational doesn't make it ethical. That's why logic and reason are ultimately limited and cannot be used by themselves to determine truth.

Kinda hard when they all seem to drop into the mold eventually.

Pragmatism may be a popular American philosophy, but your assertion that everyone surrenders to it is just plain absurd. If that were true, then there would be a lot less political debates all around.

Yeah....or you mother could have walked into a countertop on accident and your jaw got bumped.

Actually, stuttering is a neurological disorder associated with the areas of the brain related to speaking. Whatever the case, God ordains the means as well as the ends. He is sovereign over all.

Honey, I'm going to put it plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's truth or not. An insulting comment is an insulting comment. You could tell a pregnant lady that she won't have to worry about the baby fat for too long and because she led an active lifestyle pre-pregnancy that she'll have no problem working it off, but the woman will still interpret it as you calling her a beached whale. And once she calls attention to it, trying to back out of it by saying "Oh, that's how YOU took it. Not my fault." doesn't save you one bit of face.

There's a difference between being offended and being insulted, the latter requires a cruel intent. You may have been offended by what I said, but that doesn't that I was trying to insult you. Taking your position, anything I say could be interpreted to be "insulting" simply because you don't agree with what I said. That you take such a position is indicative of the fact that the truth does indeed hurt. We don't like to hear truth. We prefer to live in darkness. Such is the human condition.

You still failed to provide me a great reason as to why same-sex couples shouldn't be able to marry or enter a legal partnership, adopt children, and leave wills and estates and all the extras to each other like normal couples, other than a bunch of answers that all point back to religion, which ultimately will fail in court by itself.

Apparently you practice selective reading because I've repeatedly stated on this forum and elsewhere that I don't believe that civil government ought to be involved in regulating or defining marriage. I want the state to stay out of the marriage business entirely. I prefer a general right of contract among individuals which already exists. That's been my position all along.

And just to reiterate, I'm done talking to you. Since you can't muster enough self-control to address me as an equal worthy of respect (the very thing you claim to be fighting for), then I refuse to have any further communication with you. Go ahead and call me a "dumbass" or whatever other name you want. I'm sure the drones in the echo chambers will laugh it up. Thank you for proving to me yet again that discourse with the "other side" is a waste of time in 90 percent of the cases. You've represented your side very well.

Since it's your last and you're not responding, I'm just left to wonder why on earth you let a topic with a response 10 days past even be worthy of a result? I had assumed you'd already decided to not engage in further discussion out of disgust for the low level of trash talk I had resorted to, simply because that's what most people do.

Thank you for proving to me yet again that discourse with the "other side" is a waste of time in 90 percent of the cases. You've represented your side very well.

All I have to say is ditto.

That's why logic and reason are ultimately limited and cannot be used by themselves to determine truth.

Now I'm left to wonder exactly how does one determine what is or isn't truth, especially after reading:

Taking your position, anything I say could be interpreted to be "insulting" simply because you don't agree with what I said. That you take such a position is indicative of the fact that the truth does indeed hurt. We don't like to hear truth. We prefer to live in darkness. Such is the human condition.

The beauty of me is that you'll never know if I'm really insulted or offend. I could be offended, or I could see an opportunity to fake insult or injury and use it to my advantage, or disadvantage, depending on how the course of events ultimately ends up. For example: I grow weary and tired of attempting to expending energy on the topic, and it's much easier to just resort to a level of name-calling and trash talking that fades to nothing much faster. I'm sure you'll simply take this statement and suggest that I'm trying to make up for something or cover something else up, or you'll go right on ahead and use it to psychoanalyze me in some way, because the internet is CLEARLY the best way to judge a person's moral views and ethical actions. By the way, if you ever do decide to speak again, in your infinite wisdom and educated words, please explain to me the difference between the two, and give me some real world examples of how having ethics or not having ethics changes a person.

Your point? Anyone who has an opinion on anything is biased, including you.

That is my point. Your answers just come from a more religious-centered background, while my opinions tend to favor a non-religious doctrine of thinking.

Pragmatism may be a popular American philosophy, but your assertion that everyone surrenders to it is just plain absurd.

Oh, but they do. I'm the young, arrogant, selfish man who hates to waste time on things and people that ultimately have no effect or bearing on my life. I do what I want, when I want it, how I want to do it. If I don't want to do something, I simply just don't. However, this does not mean that I go around in public openly displaying my selfish and arrogant nature. If people were to notice that about me, their reaction to me and what I can get out of them would possibly become counter-productive to my own goals. If you were to meet me in person, you'd find that I'm quite possibly one of the most honest, hard working individuals. I'm constantly cheery and upbeat. I always give people the benefit of the doubt. Rarely do I become negative or angry for long periods of time. When it comes to school or work, I constantly strive to earn the favor of whomever is in charge, without even coming close to looking like a kiss-ass, because their friendship eventually becomes of value to me when I need a day off or an extension on a paper. I handle situations in person very diplomatically, and I prefer to avoid any and all conflict altogether, often taking the arguments I get into and turning them into conversation with a peaceful outcome that is beneficial for everybody involved, myself included. Underneath my skin though, I'm constantly irritated by others. I hate slow people and those who lack common sense. But on the surface? I'm just smiling kindly at the autistic child that's having a fit in the store, taking pity on the parent because I know in their mind their torn between anger and frustration and love for their child. When it comes down to it, there's an extremely large divide between what I think and want to do, and what I actually act on and say. The former allows me to retain some level of individuality and lets me come to places like Bloop, where I'm just another anonymous face, and vent what I really think and feel. The latter allows me to present myself to the real world as an honest, hard-working young man with a kind heart and ambition. The latter has also gotten me everything I want in life thus far, with minimal effort. My forced positivity and the honest, caring, "loving" energy that I've projected onto the world around me in attempts to ultimately get what I want out of people and places has huge returns for me. Despite my inner negativity and turmoil at times, I try hard to not let that physically manifest itself in the real world, because by expending and acting on such negative energy, you in turn foster the chance for such behavior to become habitual, and negative energy projected onto the world always comes back. I view the internet as something slightly different, where I'm channeling it into words and text on a computer, and ultimately, little bits and bytes on a hard drive somewhere in a server farm, rather then yelling at a person face to face, which I ultimately avoid. I see the internet as more of a middleman to absorb such energy, a slightly healthy output, at the expense of others at times. It's not right to be as vicious and mean and downright barbaric as I have over the years, but such actions are driven by the need to expend such pent up energy. You're one of those targets I've put that energy out on, and for that, I do apologize in a way. You don't have to take it, but I'm throwing it out there anyway.

Now it's your turn. You, my dear, are the intelligent religious man. You've got a very wide horizon mentally, and you're highly educated and have the ability to think quite deeply on topics, but ultimately, you retain Christian-centric beliefs and views on the world, which can be interpreted as good or bad by the non-religious, depending on the topic at hand. You also are of the special variety of person who carefully words him statements so that their meanings are all implied and can be taken or assumed as direct statements. I've read back over some of what you've written, and you're quite the linguist in the sense that once someone calls you out on something you've said, you keep yourself and your words in a position where you can claim no responsibility. You word sentence and conduct arguments with a sort of fail-safe protection. You're able to call upon the defendants "No. That's not what I said, that's just how you understood and/or took my statement" and "I never said that, although I can see where you've gotten that implication". You yourself, while taking the "high road" and refusing to stoop down to lower levels of barbaric communication, like I have, ultimately play into it, by continuing the conversation. People like me who cannot seem to take a single, solitary stance on something and continually change their mind and their ideas and opinions on a topic baffle you somewhat, and people who have the same mentality as yours all react differently to it. To use an idea/concept that has absolutely no relevance to anything we've discussed, is abortion. I'm fine with early term abortion. I do believe that it is killing human life, and I do believe that you are killing a living creature, but having an abortion performed in early pregnancy (under the first two months) is a right I can see women having. Late-term abortions are something I'm against, because by that point you (in my eyes) more strongly fit the baby-killer definition. Some strong Catholics and other Christian denominations alike have recoiled in horror at my words in the past, unable to understand how I can take pro-life ideals and mix them with an ultimate pro-choice stance on the issue, but even that might change. Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control in my eyes, and those who have reckless sex while using abortion as a fallback option are wrong, but if a women gets pregnant on accident and decides to not carry to term, that's her decision, not mine. I waver on topics depending on the circumstances, and my position and stance on topics changes depending on the mood I'm currently in while thinking about them. Such a fluid and open way of thinking about things is a weak point for the strong, grounded thinkers like you, and it's this that is my downfall in discussions and it's the leverage point those who share your train of thought pick at. The other common mistake people who share your train of thought make is that you assume that I'm not highly self aware (I'm not accusing you of this, by the way. All of the "you"s thus far are subjective), when in fact, as I write, I make note of exactly what part of my words and opinion will be picked at. I'm already aware of the weak points as I hit the post or send button, and I try my best to word things as strongly as I can to leave as little room as possible for debate, but such a thing is almost impossible to do, no matter who you are. The willing find a way, even if it's not the best and brightest. Hate to say it, but yes, you do fall into a specific pragmatic category of thinking. You may not constantly be following it, but you do drift in and out from time to time.