Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next

Topic: Mind control and religion.......
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 01:45 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? people have a sense of appropriate, healthy, inappropriate and unhealthy,, and contrary to popular belief, it didnt STEM from the writing or reading of the bible, but has been around as long as those things that are appropriate/inappropriate have been around

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 01:48 AM
So only certain people can have rights to marriage? How is that not segregating? because marriage is not a RIGHT it is a privilege? What other situation can you think of where having a 'license' is an unconditional right? This is the problem IMO when you get the state involved in personal affairs, you take God given rights and make them to where they become subjective in who can have them and who can't. The state has no business dictating things like this. I agree, if its not STATE Supported and SANCTIONED, than the state has no place in it if the state is being asked to SUPPPORT and/or SANCTION, they are being asked to be involved in it cant have it both ways

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 01:48 AM Edited by Kleisto on Thu 05/26/11 01:49 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? It's not the same thing, namely because in most cases with that, what's going on isn't going to be consensual. If it was, then you know what, let them do it. It's not my place to tell them no. A homosexual or lesbian relationship by comparision, IS consensual. People need to mind their own business in any case though. If the person or persons is happy, then leave them alone. Simple principle.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 01:49 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? It's not the same thing, namely because in most cases with that, what's going on isn't going to be consensual. If it was, then you know what, let them do it. It's not my place to tell them no. A homosexual or lesbian relationship by comparision, IS consensual. People need to mind their own business in any case though, if the person or persons is happy, then leave them alone. Simple principle. I agree, leave them alone, do not condone nor condemn them, let them do their thing thats what the state does, thats what the laws do

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 01:52 AM Edited by Kleisto on Thu 05/26/11 01:55 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. In my opinion, either everyone has freedom, or no one does. What happens when the majority starts to say YOU can't do certain things because they don't like it? Suddenly the game changes doesn't it?

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 01:53 AM Edited by Kleisto on Thu 05/26/11 01:53 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? It's not the same thing, namely because in most cases with that, what's going on isn't going to be consensual. If it was, then you know what, let them do it. It's not my place to tell them no. A homosexual or lesbian relationship by comparision, IS consensual. People need to mind their own business in any case though, if the person or persons is happy, then leave them alone. Simple principle. I agree, leave them alone, do not condone nor condemn them, let them do their thing thats what the state does, thats what the laws do Bullcrap. The laws punish you for going against what they say, even if you're only effecting yourself. That's the total antithesis of leaving alone. All the state and laws tend to do is control.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 01:55 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. the constitution does not define what 'freedom' is, and it gives states a right to implement policies and laws as their MAJORITY sees fit

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 01:57 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. In my opinion, either everyone has freedom, or no one does. What happens when the majority starts to say YOU can't do certain things because they don't like it? Suddenly the game changes doesn't it? but noone has said anyone cant DO anything, they have just stated what will be RECOGNIZED as this or that I Can do hair in my home, but I wont be considered a hair dresser by the state without a proper cosmetology license,,, I can swing on a chandalier with my brother and five cousins if thats what I wish to do, but the state will not RECOGNIZE that as any special or privileged relationship,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 01:58 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? It's not the same thing, namely because in most cases with that, what's going on isn't going to be consensual. If it was, then you know what, let them do it. It's not my place to tell them no. A homosexual or lesbian relationship by comparision, IS consensual. People need to mind their own business in any case though, if the person or persons is happy, then leave them alone. Simple principle. I agree, leave them alone, do not condone nor condemn them, let them do their thing thats what the state does, thats what the laws do Bullcrap. The laws punish you for going against what they say, even if you're only effecting yourself. That's the total antithesis of leaving alone. All the state and laws tend to do is control. it has to be a law for you to go 'against' it,, passing no law, FOR OR AGAINST, is the definition of staying out of it,,,,

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 01:59 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. the constitution does not define what 'freedom' is, and it gives states a right to implement policies and laws as their MAJORITY sees fit ""We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Seems clear to me. Who are you to say what makes someone else is happy, provided they aren't harming another in the process is wrong?

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 02:00 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? It's not the same thing, namely because in most cases with that, what's going on isn't going to be consensual. If it was, then you know what, let them do it. It's not my place to tell them no. A homosexual or lesbian relationship by comparision, IS consensual. People need to mind their own business in any case though, if the person or persons is happy, then leave them alone. Simple principle. I agree, leave them alone, do not condone nor condemn them, let them do their thing thats what the state does, thats what the laws do Bullcrap. The laws punish you for going against what they say, even if you're only effecting yourself. That's the total antithesis of leaving alone. All the state and laws tend to do is control. it has to be a law for you to go 'against' it,, passing no law, FOR OR AGAINST, is the definition of staying out of it,,,, Ok so if you agree with me, why is it ok for people to pass laws based on what they feel right and wrong is? If it's none of your business, then why get involved?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 02:01 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. the constitution does not define what 'freedom' is, and it gives states a right to implement policies and laws as their MAJORITY sees fit ""We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Seems clear to me. Who are you to say what makes someone else is happy, provided they aren't harming another in the process is wrong? I explained that, harm is a subjective value I can say stealing from an insured institution is not harmful, but you say stealing isnt 'right' I can say sleeping with your brother is not harmful, but perhaps in the bigger picture of community it is,,, these are subjective values of harm, and the majority have to decide which of those subjective values they will apply and apply them

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 02:02 AM Edited by msharmony on Thu 05/26/11 02:03 AM
I am not stopped from having my faith, yet the government isnt and shouldnt be required to promote/support/encourage christianity Ok so why are they able to pass laws then based on it? Is that not in itself promoting it? which laws are exclusively based in biblical principles as opposed to cultural principles and shared community beliefs? it cant be proven that any law is passed EXCLUSIVELY based in the bible,,, Where does the opposal of homosexuality come from? I rest my case. the same place opposal of incest comes from..... do you figure christians are the only ones who find something inappropriate about those relationships? It's not the same thing, namely because in most cases with that, what's going on isn't going to be consensual. If it was, then you know what, let them do it. It's not my place to tell them no. A homosexual or lesbian relationship by comparision, IS consensual. People need to mind their own business in any case though, if the person or persons is happy, then leave them alone. Simple principle. I agree, leave them alone, do not condone nor condemn them, let them do their thing thats what the state does, thats what the laws do Bullcrap. The laws punish you for going against what they say, even if you're only effecting yourself. That's the total antithesis of leaving alone. All the state and laws tend to do is control. it has to be a law for you to go 'against' it,, passing no law, FOR OR AGAINST, is the definition of staying out of it,,,, Ok so if you agree with me, why is it ok for people to pass laws based on what they feel right and wrong is? If it's none of your business, then why get involved? I dont know, ask homosexual who wish laws to be passed? ask legislators who make sex a crime based strictly on biological age? I am fine leaving it as it is,, staying out of it,,, I feel their reasons for not wanting adults having relations with children is just as significant as the reasons for not wanting same sex individuals having sex the difference is, the law hasnt actually been passed which PROHIBITS such behavior for the latter,,,

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 02:02 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. In my opinion, either everyone has freedom, or no one does. What happens when the majority starts to say YOU can't do certain things because they don't like it? Suddenly the game changes doesn't it? but noone has said anyone cant DO anything, they have just stated what will be RECOGNIZED as this or that I Can do hair in my home, but I wont be considered a hair dresser by the state without a proper cosmetology license,,, I can swing on a chandalier with my brother and five cousins if thats what I wish to do, but the state will not RECOGNIZE that as any special or privileged relationship,,, I'm not just talking about that though. There are certain laws on the books that regulate things we can do and things we cannot do, such as growing pot for one example. These are things that do not effect anyone else, but the laws exist anyway. That's what I am getting at. Once you let the law in a little bit, they will take more and more, to where soon you have no rights at all.

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Thu 05/26/11 02:03 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. the constitution does not define what 'freedom' is, and it gives states a right to implement policies and laws as their MAJORITY sees fit ""We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Seems clear to me. Who are you to say what makes someone else is happy, provided they aren't harming another in the process is wrong? I explained that, harm is a subjective value I can say stealing from an insured institution is not harmful, but you say stealing isnt 'right' I can say sleeping with your brother is not harmful, but perhaps in the bigger picture of community it is,,, these are subjective values of harm, and the majority have to decide which of those subjective values they will apply and apply them I still think right and wrong is easily defined, it's only when we bring morality into it, that suddenly it becomes a gray area.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 05/26/11 02:05 AM
laws should be passed by what the majority vote,,,which will be different with differing cultures and customs,,, Perhaps, but a lot of these laws really have no business being laws at all. In fact if it wasn't for certain people getting their panties in a bunch over what others were doing, regardless of culture, they wouldn't exist. It's those who are trying to push their own ideas of morality and right and wrong that create them to start with. Laws should be reserved for situations where actual harm to another being exists, not perceived. so should there be a law against,, bank robbery? if no weapon is used,, being the money is INSURED And returned to the bankers? should there be a law against a brother marrying a sister, since our reproductive rights are supposed to be 'our choice' and noone is actually 'hurt' unless a deformed child is born? should there be a law against lying under oath, since no actual harm comes to another individual? ,,the gauge of what is truly 'harmful' is broad and subjective and has usually also been up to the community at large to decide In the case of the 1st, that is obviously harming another person, you are stealing. Everyone knows that that is not really a good thing to do, so this analogy doesn't work. As for the 2nd, I don't really know what I feel about that, though I'd lean towards living and let living, because again I don't think that is any of our business. Lying under oath, is another thing that pretty much anyone knows is not good, because you are refusing to tell the truth in a particularly important matter in most cases. So again the analogy fails. What is harmful only becomes broad and subjective in my mind when certain people take it upon themselves to push their standards of morality on others. how are you stealing if the person gets it back? thats what I mean, what you think EVERYONE should know is very subjective I think everyone should know the significant difference between a male and female relationship vs a homosexual one,,,but that doesnt make it so And with the lying under oath, again is the assumption that EVERYONE knows its not 'good',,,because its merely 'not telling the truth' I could argue that everyone should know that homosexual activity is not 'healthy' or 'natural' ,,such 'opinions'(yours and mine) are simply that, and they are not at all some UNIVERSAL truth that all will share,,which is why we have to refer to what the MAJORITY of a community want for their community,,,, We may not all share the same truths you are right, but why should a few people be able to tell others what to do on matters that don't concern them? They have their beliefs, fine, but they cross the line when you start to say, you have to abide by what they think right and wrong is. because thats what we agreed to in this culture, that we vote, and let the vote decide we have seat belt laws, we have laws about at what age we can have sex with others, these are based in concepts of right and wrong,,but sometimes concepts of right and wrong are also based in a line of logic(Which all may not agree with) we cant ignore right and wrong just because everyone wont agree on it, we must instead make those community decisions with what the majority want for their community if it were a minority who felt that way, certainly a majority vote would change it,, but until that majority vote happens, than we cant assume only a minority feel that way The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. In my opinion, either everyone has freedom, or no one does. What happens when the majority starts to say YOU can't do certain things because they don't like it? Suddenly the game changes doesn't it? but noone has said anyone cant DO anything, they have just stated what will be RECOGNIZED as this or that I Can do hair in my home, but I wont be considered a hair dresser by the state without a proper cosmetology license,,, I can swing on a chandalier with my brother and five cousins if thats what I wish to do, but the state will not RECOGNIZE that as any special or privileged relationship,,, I'm not just talking about that though. There are certain laws on the books that regulate things we can do and things we cannot do, such as growing pot for one example. These are things that do not effect anyone else, but the laws exist anyway. That's what I am getting at. Once you let the law in a little bit, they will take more and more, to where soon you have no rights at all. there are always potential extremes, no law equalling chaos, and extreme law equalling a prison state it is a tricky thing to find a middle ground that EVERYONE will be happy with,,,

jrbogie Joined Sat 03/01/08 Posts: 2490	Fri 05/27/11 06:16 AM
The constitution though promises freedom for all does it not? When you start to pass laws that go against that idea, what does it mean anymore? The legal system as it stands, is everything that is wrong with society, because you got a small group of people, or hell even a larger group of people dictating right and wrong for everyone. I'm sorry but that's wrong. In my opinion, either everyone has freedom, or no one does. What happens when the majority starts to say YOU can't do certain things because they don't like it? Suddenly the game changes doesn't it? no, the constitution does not promise freedom for all. it guarantees equal due process for all. you are not free to drive at any speed that you wish. you're not free to enter a home uninvited. you don't even enjoy freedom of speach in my home. say something that offends me and i'll toss you out. it's not in the least wrong that laws are passed to protect a small group of people. if the majority ruled segregation would still be legal in the southern states. you're right, however, about the majority deciding laws. as james madison put it, "our new republic protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority."