Rationalizing feelings in a reality that its wrong

[allhart]

Abortion and gay marriage to only state a few. People will rationalize there agendas stating its there right ,but by who's authority do they get there rights from and to what purpose should they be governed if everyone's right are to be given. Has America has lost its integrity ,honor and morality to whom in which given them this country. To whom Liberty and free will was constituted in our constitution. Modeled after in disbelief or not for the good of the people.To See that the bible brought comradery's common ground for liberty of the people.

 

[Black Soul]

What impact, business does abortion have on you? It's a life that's taken away, which sums up the basic routine that everything dies. I'm not particularly into marriage as a whole, but again, what's so frightening about it?

If God doesn't like what he sees, he can easily change it, but his followers haven't been granted that permission to do so. God never told you to use the bible as a tool to control people.

 

[GrayCat]

Read my signature.


Peoples rights are about having personal freedom and limited interference from the government in making their own choices.

 

[allhart]

What impact, business does abortion have on you? It's a life that's taken away, which sums up the basic routine that everything dies. I'm not particularly into marriage as a whole, but again, what's so frightening about it?

If God doesn't like what he sees, he can easily change it, but his followers haven't been granted that permission to do so. God never told you to use the bible as a tool to control people.

Two wrongs never add up to one good one in my adding. Breaking down what isn't broken doesn't add up either in my understanding Marriage between the sexes work out fine. If the others parties have the grace given to them to procreate out side of marriage. So called free will. Then leave what is sacred alone.

 

[TooCurious]

Two wrongs never add up to one good one in my adding.

That assumes that abortion is a "wrong," and a worse "wrong" than the alternative, in any particular case. These are two assumptions that you have not backed up; you just take it for granted.

Breaking down what isn't broken doesn't add up either in my understanding

That assumes that extending the rights of marriage to an additional group of adults is somehow "breaking down" marriage -- which is another unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

Marriage between the sexes work out fine.

So does marriage between members of the same sex. How do you imagine that same-sex marriage "hurts" opposite-sex marriage?

If the others parties have the grace given to them to procreate out side of marriage. So called free will. Then leave what is sacred alone.

Allowing same-sex marriage makes marriage better, because it extends those rights to a group that is unjustly barred from those rights. And just because a particular idea of marriage is "sacred" to you, that doesn't mean that you have the right to force other people to do things your way. A same-sex couple's marriage may be just as "sacred" to them.

Your way isn't automatically the best way.

(This also applies to your opinion of what you believe "God's way" is.)

 

[Black Soul]

allhart, Marriage doesn't always work out fine when there's cheating and divorce. What's your definition of "fine"?

So, I guess a woman should keep an unborn child in her while a doctor informed her that she was at risk of her own life in danger? Because I know a woman who aborted, because she was going to die along with her unborn child.

Sex isn't the only aspect of procreation. I surely hope that you don't think that every path is the same, that everyone was intended to be with the opposite sex (singles exist too) and was mandatory to produce. If so, then it says that nowhere in the bible, unless this is from your own personal values.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Rationalizing feelings in a reality that its wrong

That has to be the coolest title to a thread I've ever seen.

It sounds like the catchy line to a great song.

 

[allhart]

That assumes that abortion is a "wrong," and a worse "wrong" than the alternative, in any particular case. These are two assumptions that you have not backed up; you just take it for granted.



That assumes that extending the rights of marriage to an additional group of adults is somehow "breaking down" marriage -- which is another unsubstantiated assumption on your part.



So does marriage between members of the same sex. How do you imagine that same-sex marriage "hurts" opposite-sex marriage?



Allowing same-sex marriage makes marriage better, because it extends those rights to a group that is unjustly barred from those rights. And just because a particular idea of marriage is "sacred" to you, that doesn't mean that you have the right to force other people to do things your way. A same-sex couple's marriage may be just as "sacred" to them.

Your way isn't automatically the best way.

(This also applies to your opinion of what you believe "God's way" is.)

On what authority you base your rights on. Who give the authority or the right. As I see it the bible is based in man kinds rights, role and what his free will is in society. For a common ground as a whole.

 

[Holy Roller]

What impact, business does abortion have on you? It's a life that's taken away, which sums up the basic routine that everything dies.

Lol, and suppose someone you love (if that's possible) dies at the hands of an axe murderer. Why would you play the hypocrite and get angry at the axe murderer? After all, the loved-one was gonna die eventually, right?

 

[allhart]

Feelings aside.Good or evil
1) abortion? Reality on life. Life is good. Abortion is bad. No variable can change that Reality. Not an act of sex of any kind. Good bad or indifferent.

 

[TooCurious]

On what authority you base your rights on. Who give the authority or the right. As I see it the bible is based in man kinds rights, role and what his free will is in society. For a common ground as a whole.

I actually approach the question of rights from the opposite direction that you do. In order for someone (individual, socity, government, what-have-you) to restrict an individual's behavior, it has to be with the legitimate concern of protecting another individual's freedom to behave as he chooses. The Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins," is applicable here. Rights need not be based on authority; the legitimate ability to restrict them must be.

 

[Black Soul]

Lol, and suppose someone you love (if that's possible) dies at the hands of an axe murderer. Why would you play the hypocrite and get angry at the axe murderer? After all, the loved-one was gonna die eventually, right?

Quite frankly, I haven't had someone who's close to me in a while now. Besides that, You're comparing a human to a fetus and your comparing a non-relative that has no relation to your own.

And yes, people that you're close to will die and chances are that it will have an impact. It's your choice to get over your loss or to move on. The point is that everyone dies. Tough.

If a woman wants to abort out of danger of her own life, intolerable pain, or simply deemed the fetus as unwanted, then it's her body. However, if you're against the first one and want her to die, then that really says alot about you.

 

[GrayCat]

On what authority you base your rights on. Who give the authority or the right. As I see it the bible is based in man kinds rights, role and what his free will is in society. For a common ground as a whole.

Free will is inherent to being human, because humans have the capacity to recognize this and to be conscious of their own choices when they choose to make them.


This ability need not "come" from anywhere or be based on anything. It simply is part of our nature. If it is granted to humans, then it is not inherent, and is merely part of the agenda of someone in authority which takes away its value.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Abortion and gay marriage to only state a few. People will rationalize there agendas stating its there right ,but by who's authority do they get there rights from and to what purpose should they be governed if everyone's right are to be given. Has America has lost its integrity ,honor and morality to whom in which given them this country. To whom Liberty and free will was constituted in our constitution. Modeled after in disbelief or not for the good of the people.To See that the bible brought comradery's common ground for liberty of the people.

People rationalize their personal prejudices all the time, some rationalize their prejudice against people with different skin color, some rationalize their prejudice against people of different religions. You rationalize your prejudice against people of different sexual orientations. You might do well to ask yourself the very questions you are asking:

by who's authority do they get the right to discriminate against minorities?
How do your personal prejudices factor into the supposed lost of integrity, honor and morality in this country?
How does discrimination against a minority lead to integrity, honor and morality?

 

[quatona]

I don´t seem to understand the grammatical structure and hence the meaning of the thread title.

Abortion and gay marriage to only state a few. People will rationalize there agendas stating its there right ,

Yes, they will, on both sides of the fence.

but by who's authority do they get there rights from and to what purpose should they be governed if everyone's right are to be given.

Which rights are you talking about? Your right to have a feeling? Your right to have an opinion? Your right to rationalize your feelings?
And whose authority would you accept as authoritative?

Has America has lost its integrity ,honor and morality to whom in which given them this country.

Is that a question or a statement? "Has America...?" or "America has..." ?
If it´s a question: I tend to think of traits like integrity, honour and morality as traits of human individuals, not as traits of nations. I suspect that there always have been all sorts of people in the USA - more or less honorable, integer and moral.

To whom Liberty and free will was constituted in our constitution. Modeled after in disbelief or not for the good of the people.

I´ve always felt that there´s something strange about your country. However, I didn´t know it was that bad.

To See that the bible brought comradery's common ground for liberty of the people.

allhart, not being a native English speaker, I really have problem understanding the fragments of sentences you prefer to express your opinion in. At this point I ended up completely lost.

 

[allhart]

I actually approach the question of rights from the opposite direction that you do. In order for someone (individual, socity, government, what-have-you) to restrict an individual's behavior, it has to be with the legitimate concern of protecting another individual's freedom to behave as he chooses. The Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins," is applicable here. Rights need not be based on authority; the legitimate ability to restrict them must be.

Your approach to good or evil is avoided with issues of more Question or variables. Never answering the first Question is it Good or evil with variables like freedom or rights. Where you know the reality of the first Question. So not answering you have enviable answered the first Question
Liberty is Good until you infringe on anothers freedom however not all acts have rights or freedom to do so. First you must ask. Is it right to have sex with out accountability to another. In marriage or towards life. Is your answer Good or evil. Or does your answers gravitate to your rights only? In your world round and round we go where we stop only God Knows.

 

[cantata]

Allhart, can you give us a clear idea of what you mean by "good"? I can but hope.

 

[TooCurious]

Your approach to good or evil is avoided with issues of more Question or variables. Never answering the first Question is it Good or evil with variables like freedom or rights. Where you know the reality of the first Question. So not answering you have enviable answered the first Question

You didn't ask me any questions about good or evil; you asked me where rights come from, and I answered that question. I can't very well answer a question that I am not asked. If you'd like to ask me a question about good and evil, please feel free to do so.

Liberty is Good until you infringe on anothers freedom however not all acts have rights or freedom to do so.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. That's fairly easy to understand, right?

First you must ask. Is it right to have sex with out accountability to another.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "accountability to another." You certainly must secure the informed consent of whatever party you are having sex with (and that person must be competent to give consent, meaning of legal age and not intoxicated or otherwise impaired). If you are in a relationship with another person wherein you have made an agreement of sexual exclusivity, it is wrong to break that agreement and have sex with someone else. One should be responsible and respectful in one's sexual encounters (including matters of contraception and STI testing).

In marriage or towards life.

I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to connect up to.

Is your answer Good or evil.

Good, of course. I have no evil answers. My answers hug puppies and bake cookies.

Or does your answers gravitate to your rights only?

Nope; rights apply to everyone, and everyone's rights must be upheld and protected. That's the whole point. I don't see where your confusion stems from.

In your world round and round we go where we stop only God Knows.

Not at all. "In my world," as you put it, freedom is the default and a compelling reason must exist to infringe upon it. That reason, most of the time, is another person's freedom. When freedoms conflict, one examines the situation and determines which party is attempting to infringe on the other. One man's right to swing his fist ends where the other man's nose begins. It's fairly straightforward.

 

[allhart]

You didn't ask me any questions about good or evil; you asked me where rights come from, and I answered that question. I can't very well answer a question that I am not asked. If you'd like to ask me a question about good and evil, please feel free to do so.



My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. That's fairly easy to understand, right?



I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "accountability to another." You certainly must secure the informed consent of whatever party you are having sex with (and that person must be competent to give consent, meaning of legal age and not intoxicated or otherwise impaired). If you are in a relationship with another person wherein you have made an agreement of sexual exclusivity, it is wrong to break that agreement and have sex with someone else. One should be responsible and respectful in one's sexual encounters (including matters of contraception and STI testing).



I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to connect up to.



Good, of course. I have no evil answers. My answers hug puppies and bake cookies.



Nope; rights apply to everyone, and everyone's rights must be upheld and protected. That's the whole point. I don't see where your confusion stems from.



Not at all. "In my world," as you put it, freedom is the default and a compelling reason must exist to infringe upon it. That reason, most of the time, is another person's freedom. When freedoms conflict, one examines the situation and determines which party is attempting to infringe on the other. One man's right to swing his fist ends where the other man's nose begins. It's fairly straightforward.

This is straightforward. To be honest with yourself you must annualized the situation before the act. Like? If I have sex with her and she gets pregnant. Do I care one way or the other about her or the conception. Or are you free to go about your marry little way? Oh... Your rights sound so, good and honorable.Don't tell me that people haven't thought about it before. You look at what you want with a calculated risk in hope that you can get away with or fix the variable that does go your way.

 

[Beanieboy]

The bible can be misused for evil, can 't it? Didn't Satan misquote Scripture in order to tempt Jesus, claiming that if he flung himself off a building, that God would save him, as the Scripture says?

The Constitiution says that people have the Freedom of Religion. The Government with neither endorse nor forbid the practice of any religion.

However, the bible says, "I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me."

The bible supports the freedom to worship as one chooses. The bible does not.
How can you then say that the Constitution is founded on the bible?