tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post8442871022884280858..comments2024-03-16T14:43:09.430-05:00Comments on Gentlemen of Leisure: Dr. Bitz's Man MeatAustin Gortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-65748489381043752602008-11-20T11:31:00.000-06:002008-11-20T11:31:00.000-06:00aw, we're not that mysterious, just have never got...aw, we're not that mysterious, just have never gotten around to registering ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-79668796540015885202008-11-20T11:01:00.000-06:002008-11-20T11:01:00.000-06:00Well, I figured this debate was coming, but went f...Well, I figured this debate was coming, but went further than even I thought it would. But I suppose I can't complain, since I started it.<BR/>But it feels like this debate has come to a bit of an end and, shockingly, nobody's mind was change. Of course if someone wants to start this debate up again, so be it. It's a relatively free country and you can post what you want. And heck, it might make this post reach 60 comments!<BR/>Anyway, I would just like to thank everyone who contributed, me, boots~, Teebore, the Baroness, the Mysterious A and S, Anonymous, and anyone else I'm forgetting.<BR/>I thank all of you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling. And I especially thank all of you who agreed with me. You will be spared when I am ruler of the world. ;)<BR/>Anyway, perhaps we should do something like this again someday...or maybe not.Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-73769626777236830472008-11-19T21:47:00.000-06:002008-11-19T21:47:00.000-06:00I think what you'll find is something I've always ...I think what you'll find is something I've always known to be true. Sock puppets are the most evil of the puppets...aside from tuxedo wearing ventriloquist dummies with glowing red eyes.Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-6910922571196217092008-11-19T21:11:00.000-06:002008-11-19T21:11:00.000-06:00Completely off the subject and at the same time co...Completely off the subject and at the same time completely related - I went to Borders(Barnes & Noble smart ass comment placed here) tonight and purchased THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins and LET'S MAKE SOCK PUPPETS book and kit.<BR/><BR/>I can't wait to discover the connection between the two!boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-7996869508160981812008-11-19T20:54:00.000-06:002008-11-19T20:54:00.000-06:00Well, needless to say, that's awful.But, I will re...Well, needless to say, that's awful.<BR/><BR/>But, I will respond to this:<BR/><BR/>"Your argument was that sexual molestation of a child was wrong simply because the child couldn't comprehend the situation and therefore was being taken advantage of(never end a sentence with a preposition)."<BR/><BR/>I believe I was the one who made that argument, sort of. I feel I'm being a bit misunderstood, though.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't saying that sexual molestation is taking advantage of a child because they can't comprehend what's happening to them. Plenty of children/adults get taken advantage of in various major and minor ways every day and have full comprehension of what has happened.<BR/><BR/>My argument was that most children aren't psychologically developed enough to understand the complete consequences of sex and the effect it can have on them and thus even if a child consented to sexual contact it would still be wrong for an adult to have sexual contact with that consenting child.<BR/><BR/>Of course if anybody, of any age, for any reason, does not consent to sexual content and somebody forces that contact upon them then that is wrong, period. I don't think that's of any debate.<BR/><BR/>I'm treading on some dangerous territoy here, but I feel I should say this to be consistent with my own moral values.<BR/><BR/>Let's try it this way:<BR/><BR/>First, I feel it is not immoral for two consenting adults of any sex to have whatever kind of sexual contact they choose.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe it is morally right for a consenting adult and a consenting child to have sexual contact. This is because most children can be coerced into agreeing to something that they don't really want to do. Or, even if they think they want to do something, they probably don't really appreciate all the consequences that are to follow.<BR/>Basically I'm saying even if a child does consent to sex I'm not buying that they 'truly consented.'<BR/><BR/>Here's where I need to be consistent with my own internal morals:<BR/><BR/>Now, if someone could prove to me that a child was so mentally mature and so aware of all their decisions and their consequences that they were basically the same 'mental age' as your average adult, and then that child consented to sexual contact, then I suppose I don't find it immoral. (Although I would still say it should be illegal, but that's a different argument.)<BR/><BR/>But, please, don't mistake what I just wrote. What I just wrote was an exception to a rule that I don't believe ever has, is, or ever will take place. So, practically speaking, I find child molestation immoral. I know I'm going out on a limb there.Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-24130523998738926102008-11-19T19:51:00.000-06:002008-11-19T19:51:00.000-06:00I apologize if you feel I was being arrogant. That...I apologize if you feel I was being arrogant. That was not my intention.<BR/><BR/>I'm simply speaking from the standpoint of experience.<BR/><BR/>I was a child who was technically sexually molested. At the time I was fully aware of the wrongness of the situation even though I was very young. This did not prevent it from happening.<BR/><BR/>Your argument was that sexual molestation of a child was wrong simply because the child couldn't comprehend the situation and therefore was being taken advantage of(never end a sentence with a preposition).<BR/><BR/>Children are vastly more intelligent than they are given credit sometimes.<BR/><BR/>This is why I said "dig deeper".<BR/><BR/>There's much more to it than the argument you listed. It could be argued that the reproductive organs are not fully developed and this is how we know it is wrong for a child to be placed in a sexual situation. That would of course back up my argument that sex is designed for reproduction which has been misquoted on this post as meaning "you must reproduce every time you have sex."boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-28373322492078228262008-11-19T18:33:00.000-06:002008-11-19T18:33:00.000-06:00Boots~, is the arrogance and self-righteousness th...Boots~, is the arrogance and self-righteousness that comes out in your writing intentional? Don't tell me I need to "dig deeper." My morals are based on trying to treat people with the same respect I would like to be treated; would knowing more about how I decide what my morals are make you any more likely to understand my side of the argument? Probably not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-78310839537918526182008-11-19T14:00:00.000-06:002008-11-19T14:00:00.000-06:00I have really been trying to stay away from arguin...I have really been trying to stay away from arguing the morality of homosexuality because I believe morals are too subjective and can change from person to person. That's why I believe laws should be separate from morality. boots~ says that's impossible. We disagree.<BR/><BR/>Yet here I go arguing morality.<BR/><BR/>The argument of nature vs. nurture is a non-starter for me.<BR/>Was I born to like chocolate or did I learn to like chocolate? At the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I just do.<BR/><BR/>I have heard that comparing civil rights for blacks and homosexuals is like comparing apples to oranges because blacks have to be black but gays can choose not be gay.<BR/><BR/>This seems strange to me because that would be implying that if blacks did have a choice, then they should choose to be white. But they can't, so people shouldn't hold it against them.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not saying anyone posting here has said that.<BR/><BR/>But that's because what's really being discussed is morals. Everyone here seems to agree the color of your skin has nothing to do with morality.<BR/><BR/>I guess another comparison would be to ask what if Jewish people couldn't get married because not believing that Jesus is the son of God is immoral. Would that be a better comparison? Believing in the Jewish faith is a choice, not anything you're born with. Yet nobody seems to be saying Jewish people shouldn't be married.<BR/><BR/>But let's get to the nuts and bolts of this stuff...so to speak.<BR/><BR/>So, the question at hand is, is one man inserting his penis into the anus of another man immoral? Also, is the act of two women rubbing their genitalia together immoral.<BR/>I've looked at these those two issues (for one, figuratively, and the other, literally) from all sides. And I've come to the conclusion that it's not immoral. As long at it's between two consenting adults, I don't see a problem with it.<BR/><BR/>And I think the core basis of that belief is because I do not believe it is harming anyone in any way.Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-78430021010846127752008-11-19T13:31:00.000-06:002008-11-19T13:31:00.000-06:00The new issue is "wired". I tried to list a variet...The new issue is "wired". <BR/><BR/>I tried to list a variety of acts/ behaviors that to the best of my knowledge have been studied and from a "gene/wired" standpoint.<BR/><BR/>Many people believe lying is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Many people believe murder is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Is one better than the other? It depends but most people would agree that murder is far worse than lying.<BR/><BR/>I'm asking questions and offering examples to get you to think in more detail how and why you've taken your stance on the subject.<BR/><BR/>In the case of the child, age doesn't equal awareness. Also, consent doesn't make something morally right.<BR/><BR/>There are many cases of children sexually abusing other children. Sometimes the initiator is actually younger than the abused party.<BR/><BR/>This being the case, I think you need to dig deeper.<BR/><BR/>Back to the main topic of "wired".<BR/><BR/>The one side says homosexuality is genetic which makes it natural and there's nothing wrong with it because of that.<BR/><BR/>I'm saying just because you may be genetically inclined to perform an action (homosexual act, alcoholism, lying, jumping high, singing loudly) doesn't mean you should engage in that act. It isn't justification.boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-39113434376138216252008-11-19T13:01:00.000-06:002008-11-19T13:01:00.000-06:00While you believe comparing the black civil rights...While you believe comparing the black civil rights movement and the homosexual civil rights movement is like comparing apples and baseballs, I feel comparing homicidal maniacs and homosexuals is like comparing apples to baseballs. Killing people and getting it on without only one vagina and one penis are completely different things. <BR/><BR/>Saying people are wired differently is not a cop out because it applies to this situation in my opinion. You can't use it as a blanket argument for other situations because there are other reasons that I view those problems as problems. <BR/><BR/>It's all fine and dandy if people choose to not be practicing homosexuals, but I see nothing wrong with two consensual adults who DO choose to be practicing homosexuals. If a child is being sexually molested, I find that inappropriate because children's minds are not developed enough to be aware of the situation and therefore they would be taken advantage of, just as a camel would not be able to provide consent, and that is therefore wrong as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-62465352873872283752008-11-19T11:53:00.000-06:002008-11-19T11:53:00.000-06:00The prevailing point of gay people being wired dif...The prevailing point of gay people being wired differently is a cop out.<BR/><BR/>Homicidal maniacs are also "wired" differently. <BR/><BR/>Homosexuality is an act, not a trait. Black people are not acting "black". Comparing the civil rights movement of African Americans and the homosexual civil rights movement is like comparing apples and baseballs. You may think they are similar but they have very little in common once you break them down.<BR/><BR/>I know you're thinking right now that the "gay gene" has been "proven" by science but this is not an adequate justification for actions.<BR/><BR/>If someone is born with the schizophrenic "gene" we don't say,"oh they were just born that way" and leave them alone, we try to help them and nurture them out of their negative behavior.<BR/><BR/>This could go for hundreds of different acts such as seizures, panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, tourettes, alcoholism, drug abuse, sexual addiction, etc . . .<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease. I don't believe alcoholism is a disease, either. Even though you may be more inclined to do the act compared to a "normal" person this doesn't mean you have to follow through and commit the act.<BR/><BR/>There are millions of people who have been alcoholics but no longer drink. There are probably millions of people who have the "alcoholic gene" (considering many people in my family were alcoholics I think the chance of me having the "gene" is pretty high yet I'm not an alcoholic) but it never comes up because they maintain self control and restraint.<BR/><BR/>There are also many cases of people being "gay" but now they no longer are a practicing homosexual.<BR/><BR/>There are also people who will have sex with anything and anyone - boy, girl, child, camel, electronic device. Are we to say that these people are simply "wired" that way and there is nothing wrong with there actions?<BR/><BR/>Dogs hump my leg all the time. Is this simply part of nature and justification for me to return the favor by means of canine sodomy?<BR/><BR/>I'm proud of the people who have been posting on this section. Unlike past discussions/disagreements on this blog, we have yet to have anyone comment with degradation and name calling. Maybe the world is becoming a better place with more respect.boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-18730972140452590132008-11-19T10:06:00.000-06:002008-11-19T10:06:00.000-06:00Yep, i agree with the Baroness.The word 'natural' ...Yep, i agree with the Baroness.<BR/>The word 'natural' has been tossed about a bit. But dolphins, dogs, and great apes also practice homosexuality. If nature does it, then why is it 'unnatural' for homo sapiens to do so?<BR/>I've always viewed homosexuality as natural, because it's nature's form of population control. And therefore, since they're born that way (ie: natural) there's nothing morally wrong with it, just like there's nothing morally wrong with the color of a black man's skin, since nature made him that way.<BR/>-AAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-16738940209544553192008-11-19T08:36:00.000-06:002008-11-19T08:36:00.000-06:00baroness i thought you expressed yourself very wel...baroness i thought you expressed yourself very well, and i, too, had some of the same questions.<BR/><BR/>"Some people base their morals on such things as "do whatever you want as long as it makes yourself happy"."<BR/><BR/>the people that belive the above are called sociopaths and we all know what kind of things they can do.<BR/><BR/>unless you meant to write "do whatever you want as long as it makes you happy and does no harm to others" which has a completely separate meaning.<BR/><BR/>And that's where you'd have to delve into morals again.<BR/><BR/>-SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-24519429843663278332008-11-19T07:19:00.000-06:002008-11-19T07:19:00.000-06:00Not to open a new can of worms, but now that the m...Not to open a new can of worms, but now that the major debate seems to be over (knock on wood), I wanted to put in my two cents. (And I know I'm not as eloquent a writer as others, but I'll try and make my point clear.) Boots~, I find it interesting that, being the thinking kind of person that you are, you do not accept the fact that gay people are simply wired differently, and because B plus B does not equal C it's a perversion of nature. Are your gay "friends" aware that you feel this way? If so, I'd be interested to hear their justification for continuing their friendship with you, because I feel you are devaluing their relationships by calling them immoral. <BR/>I strongly believe in nature over nurture; nature just makes some people different than others, and I give props to those who don't suppress that part of themselves just because, in some places, it's not socially accepted. Every homosexual person I've ever talked to has said that they were born the way they are, so I feel that if nature wanted them that way, how can that be immoral? But I'm not a religious person, so I know you don't see it that way.<BR/>However, I see no good reason why, if they find themselves lucky enough to find someone with whom they want to spend the rest of their lives, they shouldn't be allowed to legally call it a marriage, just the same as heterosexual people are allowed that privilege.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-55672557219426538172008-11-18T17:22:00.000-06:002008-11-18T17:22:00.000-06:00I hate howling banjos.I hate howling banjos.Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-20680192976137531992008-11-18T17:11:00.000-06:002008-11-18T17:11:00.000-06:00The exit is to the left, passed the banjo that how...The exit is to the left, passed the banjo that howls at midnight.boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-30808233028442594722008-11-18T17:00:00.000-06:002008-11-18T17:00:00.000-06:00I can not disagree with that point.But I suppose t...I can not disagree with that point.<BR/><BR/>But I suppose that is more how the government is, but not necessarily how I want my government to operate.<BR/><BR/>It is true America is a republic and we vote in people who reflect our values and if they don't reflect our values in office they don't get reelected. And I have no problem with that.<BR/><BR/>But there's another piece to it, and that's that I feel the US Government should not be simply run by the people in office, but those people in office should follow a set of rules.<BR/><BR/>That's the power of the Constitution and its Ammendments. I'm not saying it's perfect or that it hasn't/can't/shouldn't be changed ever, but those rules dictates what kind of laws a government should enforce. I believe that's a logical thing to have in a government, to keep the people in office from going mad with power.<BR/><BR/>And it is of my personal belief that one of those rules, in not so many words, should be that "a law should not exist unless it is for the betterment of our society." I also believe in the "Freedom of religion." That is to say, I don't believe a law should exist strictly for religious reasons.<BR/><BR/>I feel that is logical lest the laws of the land change on the whims of those in charge.<BR/><BR/>That's the kind of Government I would like to live in.<BR/><BR/>You can disagree, but that's how I feel.<BR/><BR/>But at this point I feel like we've gotten so deep into this I'm not sure which way is out.Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-53231038122283775452008-11-18T16:23:00.000-06:002008-11-18T16:23:00.000-06:00Like I said-Government is people.I've listed how I...Like I said-<BR/><BR/>Government is people.<BR/><BR/>I've listed how I determine my morality.<BR/><BR/>Teebore has listed his.<BR/><BR/>If everything in life was black and white we wouldn't be having this discussion. <BR/><BR/>I vote for those people I feel I can trust and hopefully their morals coincide with mine. If their morals contradict mine I would express my disfavor and attempt to change their mindset while at the same time reexamining my morals to ensure I haven't missed something.boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-25966362890592484912008-11-18T16:17:00.000-06:002008-11-18T16:17:00.000-06:00So the government should obey the will of the majo...So the government should obey the will of the majority only when the will of the majority is moral. However, if the will of the majority is immoral, then the government should not obey the will of the majority.<BR/>Is that correct?<BR/><BR/>If so, how is the government supposed to decide what's moral and what is not?Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-77013611030501831352008-11-18T16:11:00.000-06:002008-11-18T16:11:00.000-06:00If the will of the majority is a moral one, yes.Th...If the will of the majority is a moral one, yes.<BR/><BR/>The government and its people have failed in the past(see segregation).boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-21111784839400877312008-11-18T15:58:00.000-06:002008-11-18T15:58:00.000-06:00"The system is designed to reflect the wants and d..."The system is designed to reflect the wants and desires of all its citizens. The problem is you can't get 2 people to completely agree on everything, never mind hundred of millions."<BR/>Well, if the government should obey the will of the people, except the people don't agree, what do you propose the government do?<BR/>Ignoring the impracticality of it all, if the government could, should it take every single issue and simply implement what the majority of the people want to do about that issue?Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-58803089241043021882008-11-18T15:37:00.000-06:002008-11-18T15:37:00.000-06:00Government is another name for people of authority...Government is another name for people of authority. People of authority are put in place in the USA by a somewhat will of the majority. The system is designed to reflect the wants and desires of all its citizens. The problem is you can't get 2 people to completely agree on everything, never mind hundred of millions. <BR/><BR/>So if government is a reflection of its people then morality in government would come from its people.<BR/><BR/>People are morally corrupt. No matter how hard you try you will end up breaking some of your morals. <BR/><BR/>A human defense mechanism to deal with the guilt of breaking our morals is to convince ourselves either we didn't do anything wrong, thus contradicting our own morals, or simply taking our morals and ignoring them temporarily.<BR/><BR/>Breaking down topics and analyzing them is part of the human thought process to figure out what something is and why it exists.<BR/><BR/>Many people are guilty of skipping this process while still stating a conclusion for their topic.<BR/><BR/>"Religious" people do this. "Non-religious" people do this.<BR/><BR/>Teebore's response to what he bases his morality on shows me has and is making a valiant effort to be intelligent and thorough in living his life.<BR/><BR/>I was raised Lutheran and went to church every Sunday. I went to a private Christian School from grades K-12. I went to a very liberal art college for a semester.<BR/><BR/>I'm read and studied the Christian NIV and King James Bible many times over. I've read the Koran and studied Islam as well as many comparative world religions.<BR/><BR/>I've questioned and torn apart many of the things I've been told are 100% truth.<BR/><BR/>I talk with people. I learn their opinions and viewpoints and try to figure out why they act and say the things they do.<BR/><BR/>I read daily and watch documentaries to be better informed about the world around me.<BR/><BR/>My morality is based on all of my collected knowledge. <BR/><BR/>This collected knowledge has shown me you should not harm your fellow man intentionally either physically or emotionally.<BR/><BR/>You should respect nature and not pervert it.<BR/><BR/>Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.<BR/><BR/>These three guidelines help to make it easier for me to judge what is morally right or wrong.<BR/><BR/>Some people base their morals on such things as "do whatever you want as long as it makes yourself happy".<BR/><BR/>The vast majority of human beings in the history of mankind would disagree with this basis.boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-4014757009436370712008-11-18T14:45:00.000-06:002008-11-18T14:45:00.000-06:00OK, let's assume this premise:"All government laws...OK, let's assume this premise:<BR/>"All government laws must have a basis in morality."<BR/><BR/>But you have also conceded this premise:<BR/>"Not all morals should be enforced by governmental laws."<BR/><BR/>I assume you agree with those two statements?<BR/><BR/>If so, we can move forward to deciding which morals should be enforced by the law.<BR/>I believe the only immoral actions that should be prevented/enforced by the law are those immoral actions that are detrimental to our society.<BR/><BR/>We seem to bring up stealing, a lot. I believe that legalizing theft would be detrimental to society.<BR/>You seem to think society would be fine if theft was legal. However, since it is immoral you believe it should be illegal anyway.<BR/>So we both agree that stealing should be illegal, we simply disagree on the reasons why it should be illegal.<BR/>So I would say that if you could solidly convince me that legalizing theft would not be a detriment to our society in the least, then I would say that theft should be legal.<BR/><BR/>So that's where I believe the government should come from. The government should prevent those immoral acts that are detrimental to society.<BR/><BR/>Where do you believe the government should get its moral center from?Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-58082022389505040552008-11-18T14:00:00.000-06:002008-11-18T14:00:00.000-06:00Once again, I'm sorry to say, but I am being misla...Once again, I'm sorry to say, but I am being mislabled.<BR/><BR/>I do NOT believe governmental law and moral law SHOULD be the same.<BR/><BR/>I am saying you cannot have the first ne without considering the other.<BR/><BR/>If their was no governmental law against stealing are society could continue just fine.<BR/><BR/>You both are assuming people follow the law.<BR/><BR/>You both are also assuming order and harmony only exists because of ownership. This was my point with the Native Americans. They lived together for the most part in happiness with little system of ownership until our ancestors came over and claimed ownership to lands and such simply because we had a flag.<BR/><BR/>People steal all of the time even though there are laws against it.<BR/><BR/>People murder all of the time even though there are laws against it.<BR/><BR/>Incest happens all of the time even though there are laws against it.<BR/><BR/>All of these things happen and society continues.<BR/><BR/>Saying something is detrimental to society or government is a MORAL argument.<BR/><BR/>Your morals are telling you we need a system in place to maintain universal order and harmony.<BR/><BR/>Laws are not telling you we need a system in place. Laws are the byproduct of morals.<BR/><BR/>Both dr.bitz's and teebore's argument is akin to saying we want orange juice but we won't conceded that it comes from oranges.boots~https://www.blogger.com/profile/11451943950396747401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-79289737136006054322008-11-18T13:44:00.000-06:002008-11-18T13:44:00.000-06:00"If someone steals from somewhere else, then the g..."If someone steals from somewhere else, then the government steps in. Why? Because society and order are crumbling by this act and soon our whole system will collapse into nothingness?<BR/><BR/>No, of course not[sic].<BR/><BR/>The government steps in because someone has "WRONGED" someone else."<BR/><BR/>I disagree. I believe that government should prevent stealing because it would be detrimental to society to allow theft and not because someone has been "WRONGED". <BR/>People get "WRONGED" all the time and the government doesn't step in, nor should it.<BR/><BR/>If I tell my wife I can't go to dinner with her family beause I'm sick, but after she leaves I go out and hang out with the guys I have just "WRONGED" my wife. I lied to her. But the government won't do anything about it.<BR/><BR/>If I convince someone to donate $10 to a charity but really use it to buy a video game, I have just "WRONGED" that person. But in that instance it is illegal.<BR/><BR/>Both are lying. But one instance is illagal and one instance is not. Because one has greater societal implications than the other.<BR/><BR/>So I believe laws can and should be separated from morals. They are not just based on people being "WRONG" which is why I don't believe morals comes into this argument.<BR/><BR/>But even if we go on the idea people being "WRONGED", I still do not understand whose being "WRONGED" by two homosexuals being married.<BR/><BR/>I'll try and wrap this up because I'm getting long winded.<BR/><BR/>One, Civil Unions are just another way of saying "Separate But Equal" which has proven in the past not to work.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I understand that you are saying laws and morality should reflect one another. This is your belief and I accept that.<BR/>I believe that laws need to have a detachment from morals. Laws need more of an argument attached to them than simply saying "we shouldn't allow this because it's immoral". Because morals are too subjective from person to person.<BR/>50 years ago some people were saying that it was immoral for black man to be with a white woman.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps another way to look at it is that if we want to equate laws to morality, than I'll accept that. But the question should not be asked, "Where do we individually get our morality from", but we should be asking, "Where should the government get its morality from?"Dr. Bitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13568570859981368717noreply@blogger.com