(09-14-2015 11:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  When I see gay people talking about this issue, the thought comes to mind that they are channeling their inner Sally Field. "You like me, you really like me."

It seems to be more about acceptance than real issues like health and retirement benefits.

Depends on what you mean by "acceptance", most gays give less than 1 fuk about what others think.

The entire DOMA case was based on Federal Tax laws for estate taxes where for a same sex marriage you could not pass everything to your spose tax free.

Health care benefits was an issue. Some states specifically outlawed offering same sex health care benefits. My company was self insured and allowed it. After my partner's company was sold about 11 years ago I added him to my health plan. I had to sign an affidavit indicating relationship & financial intertwined, or something like that. Regardless I had to pay his share of the premium with "after tax" dollars" and in addition the difference in what I paid and what they considered "fair market value" (about 4K a year) was added as gross income, on which I had to pay taxes on.

When I retired in 2012 they said that they do not recognize same sex relationships since it was under federal law.

The other current issue is ENDA. It is not illegal in most states to fire someone just for being gay.

(09-16-2015 07:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by "acceptance", most gays give less than 1 fuk about what others think.

Yeah, well, um, no.

(09-16-2015 08:04 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 07:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by "acceptance", most gays give less than 1 fuk about what others think.

Yeah, well, um, no.

If you are still in the closet then I can understand where you are coming from. I was in the closet most of my life, but it was more out of "Fear" versus "acceptance".

(09-16-2015 08:04 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 07:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by "acceptance", most gays give less than 1 fuk about what others think.

Yeah, well, um, no.

Right that's why they try to shut down small catering businesses that won't do their weddings.

(09-16-2015 12:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 08:04 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 07:55 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by "acceptance", most gays give less than 1 fuk about what others think.

Yeah, well, um, no.

Right that's why they try to shut down small catering businesses that won't do their weddings.

and bakeries
and florists

(09-14-2015 04:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:But only the religious are truly 'vested' in that outcome. To scientists, it's an opinion. To the religious, it's their souls.

And that's just your opinion, and one that is pretty self-serving honestly. Morality can exist without religion, and the investment one has in that morality is not required to be weighed by ones belief in the supernatural. There are plenty of atheists who are very invested in all sorts of moral issues which mirror religious teachings, and I think that your statement implies that can't be the case. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, and it honestly did not come off as mean spirited, but just thought I'd respond bluntly.

Quote:http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/1...peech.html It's hard to find stories like this from the late 90's... but I believe they were more common then than they are now. Back then, the issue was God in schools. This story would have gotten lots of press in the 90's. Today it's sexual orientation and you never even saw this headline.

Well, that story seems like he wanted to lead the school in prayer during his speech, which while I'm not too up in arms over, is a legitimate issue that can be raised. One note, it wasn't ever about GOD in school, it was about religion in school. I was in school at that time, and I remember going to christian youth retreats where people talked to us about our religious rights being attacked. Even as a teenager I realized that argument was nonsense because these same people would lose their mind if it were a teacher leading a Muslim prayer in class or an atheist teaching that there is no god. None of it has any purpose in a public school because if you allow any of it, you must allow all of it.

Which is why I always love the atheist societies who put up the Baphomet statues outside any courthouse which wants the Ten Commandments. They're pointing out in the most obvious way the problem with allowing any sort of religious endorsement into public places, it means you must endorse all religions.

Quote:First, I'm not talking about 'you'... I'm explaining why I said what I said.

Second, if an argument were compelling, most people would agree with it, right? What is it compelling you to do? So I don't see that unpopular and 'un-compelling' are as different as you imply. Compelling arguments generally 'win'.

No, I think compelling arguments are ones that stand up to critical thinking and whose results are well founded in overall morality and constitutional law. Of course it's an arbitrary distinction that is open for debate, that is inherent in the standing up to critical thinking portion, but it most certainly is not the same as the 'popular' opinion.

Quote:As far as mainstream liberal thought.... politics is a matter of perception, not fact.... and I'm talking about democrats who think they are liberal because they are democrats. The term liberal generally implies free and open and my opinion is that many democrats are neither free nor open.

I don't know if I disagree with that characterization of democrats, but I also don't really like to use that definition because 'many' of any group of millions can be seen as something that is not really fair to the sum of their group. 'Many' republicans are racist as hell, but it would be patently unfair to consider all republicans or conservatives racists.

Quote:I don't always support what the ACLU says or does, but I strongly support this comment. I think many democrats don't understand this, and the myriad of calls for 'something to be done' about printers who won't print things or bakers who won't bake things is an example of people who don't get what the ACLU is talking about there. Not the only example... from my perspective, there are many more. IMO, anyone who is truly a liberal supports your 'its not what they say or think, but what they do in response to it' opinion that I and the ACLU seem to agree with.... but that is more of a libertarian than 'democratic' position these days.

I'm sure there are countless democrats/liberals who do what you claim above, but again, it's not really fair to characterize the entirety of liberalism or the democratic party along those lines. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but outside of that, your point seems to be that there exist dumb liberals who don't have good reasons for believing what they do. I absolutely agree with that, but I'd absolutely agree with that about literally any political ideology, race, sex, sports team, etc. Of course I virulently oppose any government action on a business not supporting gay marriage in the manner the ACLU describes, but refusing service is a different matter altogether.

One note, it needs to be stated that people who 'want to do' something could very easily mean socially and without government involvement. Free speech goes both ways, and while I fully agree a baker should be able to have and express whatever views they want, individuals have the same right to bring those views to light in order to harm their business by boycotts/etc.

(09-14-2015 04:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:40 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-12-2015 10:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  If something is considered sinful only because the bible says it is, then it is only sinful for those who accept the bible as some kind of authority. If, on the other hand, it is considered sinful because the society in which we live says it is, then it is only sinful for those who accept the authority of that particular society on such matters.

Acts considered sinful in some religions and some societies are not considered sinful in others. At the end of the day, the only authority that matters is that of the individual himself. If he (sincerely) considers something sinful (whether he believes in a god or not), and does it anyway, he has sinned - even if neither society nor religious scripture agree with him.

If there is a loving god who will judge us, it will surely be by that standard. If there is a god who will judge us by some standard other than our sincerely held moral beliefs, then he/she is not a loving god.

I'm with you until the last sentence. I love my children, but I still punish them when they screw up. Yes, I might punish them less if they were acting out of a sincere belief, but wrong is still wrong.

The issue is (in my mind, and I believe the bible supports this) that once you realize that you were wrong, do you 'turn' from that, or do you argue? To err is human, to forgive divine... but you must SEEK forgiveness.

When you punish your children I believe there is at least some component there where you are doing so to "teach a lesson" in the hope that the child will modify his behavior in the future. On the other hand, the concept of punishment by an omnipotent god has no such component. It's too late for that.

This is where I disagree, which only shows that we aren't that far apart.

It's not too late, IMO. I think God will essentially say... you were earnest, but wrong... so where are you now that you know? Sort of the last check to see if you truly believe/give authority to Him, or if you merely had the right idea. I'm not saying it well, but I suspect you understand. We can disagree.. who the heck knows... I agree that good intentions matter... but at SOME point, all will be made clear.

(09-16-2015 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='UCF08' pid='12375007' dateline='1442267275']

Quote:But only the religious are truly 'vested' in that outcome. To scientists, it's an opinion. To the religious, it's their souls.

And that's just your opinion, and one that is pretty self-serving honestly. Morality can exist without religion, and the investment one has in that morality is not required to be weighed by ones belief in the supernatural. There are plenty of atheists who are very invested in all sorts of moral issues which mirror religious teachings, and I think that your statement implies that can't be the case. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, and it honestly did not come off as mean spirited, but just thought I'd respond bluntly.

You're misunderstanding me. My fault. Science isn't moral.... and religion (by my definition) doesn't require a deity... merely empathy. Science is purely factual. It doesn't care about 'feelings' when the strong cell destroys the weak one. Scientists may well as you point out, but they are reaching those conclusions through 'moral' means, not through purely scientific ones. You are vested in the outcome because of your moral/religious background.... not your scientific one. That is why I say that scientists aren't vested in the outcomes. PEOPLE who are scientists may be.

Spock vs Bones.

Quote:Well, that story seems like he wanted to lead the school in prayer during his speech, which while I'm not too up in arms over, is a legitimate issue that can be raised.

I'm editing for brevity... none of this has anything to do with the issue. There are literally thousands of similar issues, I simply took the first one off of google. You're arguing the semantics of something that is still 'vaguely' happening in (when was it?) 2014 or so when that article was written, and I'm talking about what was happening in 1999. Sorry, but I don't want to take the time to look up news clipping archives from 1999 to find them.

It was an issue, and you seem to admit that it happened, when you previously said you'd never heard of it. What you seem to be saying is that you never agreed with it.... not that you hadn't heard of it. Obviously you had.

Quote:No, I think compelling arguments are ones that stand up to critical thinking and whose results are well founded in overall morality and constitutional law. Of course it's an arbitrary distinction that is open for debate, that is inherent in the standing up to critical thinking portion, but it most certainly is not the same as the 'popular' opinion.

This makes no sense to me. The definition of a compelling argument is one that people agree with. It doesn't matter if you find it compelling for the reasons you mention (what is compelling to you) or if you find it compelling because it was delivered by a topless super-model. Either way, you found it compelling. How could you agree with a position that you didn't find compelling?

Half the people in 'popular' opinions don't have critical thinking skills or an understanding of constitutional law... yet they find arguments compelling.

You're talking about what compels you. I'm talking about the generic definition of a compelling argument. The idea that gays should be allowed to marry wasn't compelling in 1996. The exact same argument is compelling in 2015. The argument hasn't really changed.... so your criteria hasn't changed. The popularity of the argument is all that has changed.

Quote:I don't know if I disagree with that characterization of democrats, but I also don't really like to use that definition because 'many' of any group of millions can be seen as something that is not really fair to the sum of their group. 'Many' republicans are racist as hell, but it would be patently unfair to consider all republicans or conservatives racists.

Did I say or even remotely imply that? I think the media does an outstanding job of finding those extreme viewpoints and ascribing them to a far larger than exists group.... and people on both sides buy it.

Addressing your last paragraphs as well here....

My point is that the Republican party seems to have identified it and started a splinter group that is growing in significance known as libertarians. MAYBE Bernie is part of a similar splintering of the Democrats, but that remains to be seen.

I believe that lots of truly liberal democrats should find a lot to like about the libertarian movement, or if not that specific party, some similar version of a laissez-faire government but thus far, very few do.

Liberals should (by definition) support less government intrusion into personal matters, yet the only remotely serious attempt to control an ever-increasingly intrusive government comes from the right. This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats... and everything to do with Liberals and Liberty.

Quote:One note, it needs to be stated that people who 'want to do' something could very easily mean socially and without government involvement. Free speech goes both ways, and while I fully agree a baker should be able to have and express whatever views they want, individuals have the same right to bring those views to light in order to harm their business by boycotts/etc.

I agree. Those are precisely the people I'm talking about who are actually (by the definition I am using) 'liberal'. They support a party that is no less interested in control than the other party.

I'm encouraging a multi-party system... even a coalition one as is popular in Europe over the two-party, 'lesser of evils' litmus-test approach that we take.

(09-14-2015 04:57 PM)ken d Wrote:  When you punish your children I believe there is at least some component there where you are doing so to "teach a lesson" in the hope that the child will modify his behavior in the future. On the other hand, the concept of punishment by an omnipotent god has no such component. It's too late for that.

This is where I disagree, which only shows that we aren't that far apart.

It's not too late, IMO. I think God will essentially say... you were earnest, but wrong... so where are you now that you know? Sort of the last check to see if you truly believe/give authority to Him, or if you merely had the right idea. I'm not saying it well, but I suspect you understand. We can disagree.. who the heck knows... I agree that good intentions matter... but at SOME point, all will be made clear.

I can't remember the verses (not all from revelations) but I recall in a discussion about the end of days that there was a hierarchy to how people would go to heaven... and IMO, that same hierarchy exists when you die. Good people, including those who because of their circumstances never had the opportunity to hear 'the word' will be given that opportunity.

I simply don't believe that (as an example) United Methodists have it 100% correct and Baptists don't.... so Baptists are doomed. IMO, NONE of us have it 100% correct, and we will be shown the truth and asked to believe it or not. If we submit, we're good.

I suppose that I don't like to think that we're going to be kept out of paradise for missing some minutiae, but I also don't think that 'the rules' don't really matter. Frankly, I think that 90% of what we think is important to Him isn't... and that is where much of the disagreement is among the religions... but I DO think that (purely as an example again) Jews who have spent their lives denying Jesus as His son (or Christians accepting Him) will be shown the truth and must accept it. I wouldn't think it a big number, but some will have doubts and/or their ego won't let them.

(09-12-2015 10:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  If there is a loving god who will judge us, it will surely be by that standard. If there is a god who will judge us by some standard other than our sincerely held moral beliefs, then he/she is not a loving god.

Not for debate, but just wanted to leave you with something to think about....

If there is a God/Creator that establishes the absolute moral truth of this world, why do you get to define him as loving or not?

(09-15-2015 09:18 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 05:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 05:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 04:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, I think compelling arguments are ones that stand up to critical thinking and whose results are well founded in overall morality and constitutional law.

We have a language. Please stop abusing it...

Compelling -

adjective
1. tending to compel, as to force or push toward a course of action; overpowering:
There were compelling reasons for their divorce.
2. having a powerful and irresistible effect; requiring acute admiration, attention, or respect:

One can make a logically faulty yet compelling argument.

The description you've quoted above is from the mirriam webster dictionary

FIFY

First of all, it's the Merriam-Webster dictionary, if you're going to try to play this asinine card, at least spell your source right.

Secondly, I'm looking at the Merriam-Webster definition right now, and it states "capable of causing someone to believe or agree", which is exactly how I used that compelling throughout this entire thread.

Don't believe me, it's right there buddy, first definition.



Now, are you going to admit you were wrong? Because in no way, shape, or form was I ever using that word incorrectly, and quite frankly, this whole shtick you're trying to do is bordering on pathetic. Or are you, like you did above, just going to act like you weren't patently wrong about this and continue to do it again, only to embarrass yourself again? I'd prefer the former, but at this point, I wholly expect the latter.

(09-16-2015 08:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Don't believe me, it's right there buddy, first definition.



Now, are you going to admit you were wrong? Because in no way, shape, or form was I ever using that word incorrectly, and quite frankly, this whole shtick you're trying to do is bordering on pathetic. Or are you, like you did above, just going to act like you weren't patently wrong about this and continue to do it again, only to embarrass yourself again? I'd prefer the former, but at this point, I wholly expect the latter.

Now lets walk through what happened here

You said - "I think compelling arguments are ones that stand up to critical thinking"

I said - "One can make a logically faulty yet compelling argument."

We should both agree that logically faulty arguments don't stand up to critical thinking right?

we go round and round and you eventually post this..

: very interesting : able to capture and hold your attention
: capable of causing someone to believe or agree
: strong and forceful : causing you to feel that you must do something

Where is the part here which creates a box that only arguments which stand up to critical thinking fit?

(09-16-2015 08:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 08:21 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Don't believe me, it's right there buddy, first definition.



Now, are you going to admit you were wrong? Because in no way, shape, or form was I ever using that word incorrectly, and quite frankly, this whole shtick you're trying to do is bordering on pathetic. Or are you, like you did above, just going to act like you weren't patently wrong about this and continue to do it again, only to embarrass yourself again? I'd prefer the former, but at this point, I wholly expect the latter.

Now lets walk through what happened here

You said - "I think compelling arguments are ones that stand up to critical thinking"

I said - "One can make a logically faulty yet compelling argument."

We should both agree that logically faulty arguments don't stand up to critical thinking right?

we go round and round and you eventually post this..

: very interesting : able to capture and hold your attention
: capable of causing someone to believe or agree
: strong and forceful : causing you to feel that you must do something

Where is the part here which creates a box that only arguments which stand up to critical thinking fit?

No, this is exactly what you said.



You claimed that I was "abusing" language by describing arguments about social policies that I find compelling to be those which stand up to "critical thinking and whose results are well founded in overall morality and constitutional law"

That is exactly what was said. So, to insert the literal definition into what I said, "No, I think arguments which are capable of causing myself to believe or agree are ones that stand up to critical thinking and whose results are well founded in overall morality and constitutional law".

In no way, shape, or form did I ever use that word incorrectly, as you clearly claimed I did by stating "We have a language. Please stop abusing it." Are you going to admit you were wrong, or are you really that insecure that you cannot admit when you were wrong and instead stick to being the literal human embodiment of the phrase "never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"?