Here comes Cloudlet to spoil my socratic method exercises. You just have to ruin a good time, don't you? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Say.... Weren't we discussing gays at some point?

Which reminds me of an interesting tale. In VT prior to the whole Civil Union thing, here's a couple I knew: Man/Husband and Woman/Wife until Man decides he wants a sex change operation. Then, they *look like* woman and woman but are legally married still under the law. What's more, you can't change your gender on your birth certificate, so despite the snip-snip and what reality actually is, they are still, to this day, man and wife under the law. In fact, since they are man and wife, these 2 WOMEN are not eligible for the Civil Union.

How's that one? :crazy:

[img]graemlins/stormy.gif[/img] Hey, just keeping you on track, mr Philospher ;)

Now that's a very uh...disconcerting story! I didn't realize that about the birth certificates.

Pardon?

Why?

Quote:

You evidently don't know what democracy is. What you are advocating is communism. The advantage of democracy over dictatorship is that we don't have to live under anybody's morals. We can do what we like as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another human being.

And that is a moral you are advocating. The morality that infringing upon anothers rights is WRONG is subjective. So are all our laws. All based on subjective morality. I'm afraid it is you who display complete ignorance here, not me.

Quote:

Your last arguement is completely absurd. The same could be said of anybody. If we were all men the human race would become extinct. If we were all bankers the human race would become extinct. Based on your arguement, we should be banning everyone who isn't a hermaphrodite subsistance-farmer. (You are wrong anyway. The human race wouldn't die out if we were all gay. It is theoretically possible to impregnate a women without any male involvement, using the same technique used in cloning.).

Er... no... not absurd. Truth. If we were all hetrosexual the human race would not die out. If we all practiced homosexuality, we would die out. If we were all pacifists there'd be no war, if we were all vegetarians we would have a better environment.

We could play this game all day.

Keeping in mind the population growth occurs most in the poorest areas of the planet. It's a good check and balance. The rich nations succumb to childlessness, and die out, replaced by the poorer childbearing nations.

Consider that this law was passed in the US, which means that the law is bound to meet standards set by the US constitution and US legal precedents.

Following both, the outlawing of the homosexual civil union would require the repeal of the 1st ammendment to fit legally. Given that, we have a serious problem...

Pardon?

Why?
</font>[/QUOTE]Statements like
Why? are exempt from the rules that normally govern sentence structure. Some of the single word sentences you have used are completely without meaning. What exactly does it mean to end a paragraph with the word 'Simple'. What is simple? The paragraph? The writer of aforementioned paragraph? I am assuming the latter.

Laws are not based on morality. They are based on pragmatic nessecity. Whatever makes society work. I am not advocating any morality at all. What exactly do you think I am ignorant of? Please tell me what objective fact it is that I don't know. Or is it that you are ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant?

I'm not sure if it is because of your communist sympathies, but you seem to believe that everyone should live the same lifestyle. We don't all have to be hetrosexual or homosexual. Only some of us need to be straight to carry on the species.

I hope this has been an education for you. Keep the red flag flying Comrade!

Not quite exactly, Yorick. Like bacteria in a culture, we will consume our world and our food supply. The faster we procreate, the faster we can be done with it, of course. But, the ability to make more of us does not negate the possibility we may still kill ourselves because we're too dumb to fix ourselves and live in property harmony with the world.

Some of us Timber, not all. Celts, Amerindians, Lapps, Finns, Aboriginies, Bantu and other SUBSISTENCE cultures achieved that harmony. To the detriment of the planet, growth-obsessed city-cultures wiped out the subsistence cultures almost completely. :(

HELLO?!?

Please. You're not seriously attempting to give me an English lesson are you? How quaint.

If you have a problem with my language, don't read me. Simple. I will not change the way I write simply to fit in your culturally imperious way of noncomprehending my way of speaking. I write how I speak. Comprende?

Oh no, laws are based on morality. What makes society work is subjectively dependent on what the society WANTS for itself. There is no grand universal barometre of intention that all societies use. If it achieves what it intends for itself, then society by definition works. It's intent and application however, are SUBJECTIVE, and use subjective morality in the process.

You are wrong. Simple.

Have I said we should all have the same lifestyle have I? Read again. Nowhere have I suggested forbidding homosexuals from having their lifestyle, nor commiting to each other. Unless you've ignorantly prejudged me a "homophobe" or other such rot.

What I have advocated is society's right to encourage and subsidise humans it wishes to.

And for the record, no I'm not communist. Nor am I insulted if you call me one either. However, it's an attempted flame, and I hope the moderators note that in this thread alone, you have now called me -

The product of incest
Not in posession of full mental capacity
A communist

All with the intent to belittle or insult. Just because I have a different viewpoint. Who intolerantly advocates thoughtcrime now?

?? What's up Dan?