bad faith

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.










I have still yet to hear any well-reasoned opinions from you.


You have no intentions of making any valid claims for or against incest. Your only intention has been to "demonize" the opposition of gay marriage. The "bad faith" is yours.

Even the OP has the same intention, it's a shame that you don't see it.

Pan,

You need not imagine that some other meaning belongs to my words. It simply does not exist. I make every attempt to know the meaning and proper grammatical use of the terms that I employ. Please note this, and take it into deliberate consideration when responding to my posts.

To continue on with this kind of behavior after it has been pointed out numerous times borders upon deliberate disregard. I trust that we all agree that such behavior is not reasonable. It is morally wrong to continue changing the words of another, especially after it has already been mentioned that those changes hold different meaning. Your thoughts do not match my words here, Pan. I understand that you believe that I am somehow being hypocritical, but you cannot prove such an accusation, even if it were true, in the manner which you've been employing. Your own understanding is being held hostage to an imagined misconception.

It is an ill-served intent. Bad faith.

I am beginning to think that there is little possibility that genuine dialogue will be had. It is only through being exposed to new ways of thinking, including a genuine dialogue, that one can come to understand another's point of view. That cannot happen if that pov is not given it's intellectual just due. That requires listening to what is said and not supplanting that with/to something else. It is impossible for one to grasp the meaning of another's words by habitually ignoring what they say/write. In this situation it is clearl that an unconscious fervor on your part to 'prove' some imagined hypocrisy on mine has thwarted this discussion.

Accept that fact. It is only then that you'll be able truly contemplate the point of view that belongs to me. Asking for another's pov and repeatedly refusing to consider it is arguing in bad faith, and rather close-minded. Seeing how you earlier expressed the view of wanting to have an open-mided discussion, I am confident that these word will find you as well intended. Until then, your making yourself look bad.

There is no "in other words" about it.

I wouldn't tell that lie.

The OP is designed to question the amount of genuine love and support a person of Christian or Islamic background can show for a gay person without trying to save them since that is not supportive. And the fact that this denies the religious of meaningful relationships in their lives.

How is it that you think that you know what my or Dragoness' intentions are? Perhaps it be better put like this...

We have both clearly expressed our intentions. You have continually ignored those expressions, and subsequently supplanted them with your own imagination.

Arguing in bad faith - by definition.

I would not even begin to dispute this. I would only say that prior to being able to "hear" one must first be willing to listen.

Are we on the same page yet?

A preconceived notion perhaps?

Or taking things personally when they aren't?

Dragoness,

It certainly seems that way. It has been expressed several times that Pan thinks that our positions are somehow hypocritical. I suspect, after having gone back through the thread, that he thinks that there is a double standard of sorts being implemented during the justification process. While I do not know exactly how you have arrived at your position(s) regarding the institution of marriage, I am quite certain of how I have.

We'll see, I am just attempting to get on the same page. The notion of what constitutes being justified reasons for denying another a right or privelege such as marriage requires being shown. It is not just a matter of 'subjective' opinion. It is a matter of intelligent, respectful deliberation of what the facts of the matter are in addition to how those facts are being applied.

Well, no you're not, you are openly and admittedly endorsing those things. There is a world of difference between endorsement and arguing for them. The former is satisfied by merely expressing the idea that you're ok with it, much as a rock-star or sports icon endorses a product. The latter, however, requires that you justify your belief/opinion with the reasons that you hold for such an endorsement.



p1. Good decision-making requires the capability of foreseeing the possible consequences of a voluntary action and choosing based upon the rational contemplation of those.

p2. Marriage is a life-long voluntary committment that requires the ability to know and understand what that entails.

p3. Some mentally challenged people cannot reason in the ways required in order to be able to grasp the consequences of a life-long committment.

C. Some mentally challenged people are not allowed to be left to their own devices because of #3., including but not limited to living alone, and/or entering into a mrriage contract.

As I've already mentioned, just because the above argument can be wrongfully applied to gay marriage does not put the justified objections to mentally challenged people on the same ground as gay marriage. The facts which support the objections clearlydo not apply to gay marriage. Arguing, in and of itself, does not somehow make the mentally challenged facts applicable to gay marriage.

As participants in this, we need to separate the claims which can be used to enlighten the situation from those that are caustic to an intelligent discussion. There are just far too many important considerations being neglected or confused here.

p1. Good decision-making requires the capability of foreseeing the possible consequences of a voluntary action and choosing based upon the rational contemplation of those.

p2. Marriage is a life-long consequence resulting from a voluntary committment that requires the ability to know what that entails in order to be able to fully comprehend the significant degree of importance that comes with making such a choice.

p3. The parts of the brain that perform and regulate the acts outlined in 1 and 2 do not reach near maturity until late puberty, and full maturity until our early 20's.

p4. As adults, we can all look back upon some earlier bad choice(s) made during our teenage years, and realize that we were immature in our thoughts and actions.

p5. We naturally wish better things for our children than we had ourselves, including making better more well-informed decisions.

p6. The age of adulthood is 18

p7. Adult decisions require adult minds

p8. Preteen and early teen minds are not adult minds

C. These considerations offer a rough outline of the considerations which justify denying marriage priveleges to young people.

Incest, and incestual marriage is considered taboo for many different reasons. Now mind you, this required a little research on my part in order to ascertain what the public opinion poll actually was and how incest has been traditionally viewed throughout written history. My own position on incestual marriage seems to be uncommon. At least uncommon enough that I did not see it repeated during the research. This is only one portion of a much more detailed response that I began writing about my own reasons several days ago.

These are the most commonly held ones(in general)...

1. It's a social faux pas(varying studies/conclusions about why)
2. The known increase of congenital birth defects(confirmed)
3. The reduced size of extended family/wealth(survival/well-being of the family)
4. The untaught personal repulsion that most have to the idea(near universal)

It does indeed seem that half of those reasons could equally apply to gay marriage, although homosexual relationships are far less taboo than incest. I need to note here, as a pre-emptive measure, that this is not my personal argument against incestual marriage.

You never questioned it, you stated it. And anyone who refuted your claims was ignored or demonized...

"I feel that the doctrines are stifling to the person even if they don't realize it. Allowing/coercing them to conceal their real true selves behind a false shield of the religion. Not meaning that their true selves are evil as the religions teach."
Here you assert that the religious are not genuine "even if they don't realise it".

"...but the religious person cannot fully love and support the gay person in a healthy way due to misgivings taught by the church"

"The religious shield cannot allow this person to be genuine because of the fear of hell taught by the church.
"

"Causing the religious person to be ungenuine in their relationships due to the doctrines of the church in this case causing fear."

All of those were from the OP. You implied that even if a person claimed otherwise, that they were stiffled "even if they don't realize it". This is a type of fearmongering. You assert that all religious people are ungenuine and not capable of loving a person.


"By love do you mean "showing them the error of their ways"? Or putting the fear of god into them? Like you do daily?

How can a religious person even attend the gay pagan wedding to support their friend or sign papers showing support for the gay couple to adopt? How can the religious person spend every day with the gay person watching them love their partner and not say anything derogatory?

Hypocrisy? "



"I disagree. If Christianity were about life, reward would not come after death,"

"Considering that the consequences for others being gay is not the same as it is for the religious, I guess the religious are the only ones who need to worry about it."

"Again it sounds like the religious are the ones who should worry about some kind of retribution because the non religious have nothing to worry about."

"The religious do not know what is good for this country anyway so they are not saving anyone."

"Nothing wrong with homosexuality unless you are religious, so I recommend the religious not be homosexual or let the religion go so they have no fear of hell for what they naturally are."

"I have been Christianized and my opposition to the bible is strong."

"I felt like a better person and more at peace with myself when I let go of the shackles of the falseness of Christianity and the hypocrisy and superiority of Christians."

"Naw they were trying to keep me ignorant and numbified with all the others who were following blindly. I just used my logic and realized that no matter how much they tried to make it right, the bible is not the word of god nor should it be a major guide for people to follow if they want to be of healthy mind."

"since religion is not the greatest way to teach morality anyway."

"I am not atheist or so I have been told by atheists. But I do have issues with man made religions that are unhealthy for human growth and interaction."

"Christians have to be disingenuous or restrictive in their relationships with gay folks because there is no way they can approve and not say anything derogatory about the gay person's life."

"Religious cannot do that without being disingenuous to themselves and the gay person."

"Do the fanatics really believe that if homosexuals get married that all heterosexuals will suddenly become gay???"

"How funny coming from the religious defender"



And then had the nerve to state this:
"In actuality the source of morality isn't really a part of this discussion."


Your statement here applies to your own words...
"Well psychological warfare is taking an attribute of someone, say a communist and then stripping them of all humanality. So making them evil and untrustworthy."
This is what you do towards the "religious".



But, at least you are supporting incestuous marriage now. (or not opposing it at least)

3/4 of those apply to gay marriage.
#2 is "unhealthy", so disregard in accordance with your restriction.
#1 and #4 equate to "sick", a personal judgement - disregard.
#3 is irrelevant - disregard




No need to make a note, I told you you had no intentions of posing a valid objection.

I see that 1 and 4 do. The other two need justified.



Calling something "unhealthy" is an unjustifed reason. Apparently you cannot differentiate between that and the verifiable and repeatable scientific wealth of data that does not equate to calling something "unhealthy", but rather equates to objective empirical evidence. Lacking the ability to recognize this distinction indicates poor judgment.



Again... poor judgment on display.



Calling something "irrelevent" and showing how/why something is irrelevent reflects the difference between an unjustified opinion and a well-reasoned thought.



Pretentious thought and naive arrogance.

Yet still true, go figure...

Bad faith.

There are reasons not my own that have already been given that have not yet been properly addressed. Do I really need to explain the difference between calling something "unhealthy", and a justified objection based upon scientific fact?

My teenagers know the difference.

How many times must one be proven wrong before they 'man up' to at least one of their own errors?

Don't know.... We'll know when you become a "reasonable" man...

Easy to say hiding behind a computer screen. Big man.



Address the numerous yet previously hitherto ignored rejoinders that have clearly refuted your ill-conceived arguments.