Marriage equality (6 Viewers)

[Queenroot]

Atheist and do not want to live forever lol

 

[dan964]

how is this relevant?

 

[Drsoccerball]

I don't want to live forever. Where do you get the idea that Atheists want to live forever?

Have you been in a situation where you almost died to make this claim that you don't want to live forever?

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Who's it harming? Technically Jill wants to die so its not really harming her its giving her a blessing?

That is hardly an realistic nor probable situation. People don't hand suicidal people to killers and it doesn't help argue your case

Find a better and closer case to reality

But why don't they? You'll be making two people happy rather than none? Isn't that atheist logic... that they must do anything to obtain maximum pleasure ? You just say that because you can't reply to it

 

[Queenroot]

this guy

 

[soloooooo]

A referendum should be held on this issue instead of a plebiscite so that the result is binding.

 

[dan964]

Have you been in a situation where you almost died to make this claim that you don't want to live forever? {1}



Who's it harming? Technically Jill wants to die so its not really harming her its giving her a blessing? {2}



But why don't they? You'll be making two people happy rather than none? Isn't that atheist logic... that they must do anything to obtain maximum pleasure ? {3} You just say that because you can't reply to it

{1} What is the relevance of this question? Atheists don't care about eternity, esp. Paradoxica. Period.
{2} If you want to discuss euthanasia start a new thread. Your example is very poor, and hinges on the assumption that you and them have the same understanding of the issues underlying
{3} Even as a non-atheist (double negatives ), I know that isn't necessarily accurate to describe. I am afraid I have to agree with nerdasdasd on this one, your example is cherry-picking a specific improbable case (special pleading). I am personally opposed to euthanasia, so I don't feel the need to answer that one.

The main issue with your example which was (to refresh):
Let's say a person named John loves killing. He can't get enough of it and craves the action. Another person let's say Jill wants to die because she doesn't feel as though she wants to live. If John kills Jill is this considered murder? It's not affecting me, It's making both John and Jill happy so why should I care?

It assumes way too much.
Firstly it assumes some pyschopath JN (who loves killing), cannot get enough of it; and a sucidal person (not the same as someone wishing to be euthanised, the distinction is made when conditions are put on voluntary assisted suicide a.k.a. euthanasia).
Secondly, you are presuming that these two people are the only people concerned. Euthanasia concerns the government, and is currently illegal.
Thirdly, the example does not link into same sex marriage. Marriage currently (as traditional marriage) and in the future, is not legislated primarily on the adult desires and "cravings" (in the sense I suspect you are implying) but more for "equality".

But why don't they?

Because some people do have common sense**, your example seems to be a very ad-hoc argument.

(**even if they don't believe in God)

 

[Paradoxica]

{1} What is the relevance of this question? Atheists don't care about eternity. Period.
{2} If you want to discuss euthanasia start a new thread. Your example is very poor, and hinges on the assumption that you and them have the same understanding of the issues underlying
{3} Even as a non-atheist (double negatives ), I know that isn't necessarily accurate to describe. I am afraid I have to agree with nerdasdasd on this one, your example is cherry-picking a specific improbable case (special pleading). I am personally opposed to euthanasia, so I don't feel the need to answer that one.

The main issue with your example which was (to refresh):
Let's say a person named John loves killing. He can't get enough of it and craves the action. Another person let's say Jill wants to die because she doesn't feel as though she wants to live. If John kills Jill is this considered murder? It's not affecting me, It's making both John and Jill happy so why should I care?

It assumes way too much.
Firstly it assumes some pyschopath JN (who loves killing), cannot get enough of it; and a sucidal person (not the same as someone wishing to be euthanised, the distinction is made when conditions are put on voluntary assisted suicide a.k.a. euthanasia).
Secondly, you are presuming that these two people are the only people concerned. Euthanasia concerns the government, and is currently illegal.
Thirdly, the example does not link into same sex marriage. Marriage currently (as traditional marriage) and in the future, is not legislated primarily on the adult desires and "cravings" (in the sense I suspect you are implying) but more for "equality".

Expanding on that third point, homosexual acts themselves have been legal for a long time now, so that further invalidates his point, as the marriage is just a simple (coughcough) federal recognition of relationship status, and has nothing to do with any homosexual acts.

 

[dan964]

A referendum should be held on this issue instead of a plebiscite so that the result is binding.

Why a referendum? This is not Ireland or the US, where the constitution has (or used to should I say) the traditional def. of marriage.
A plebiscite makes sense; a referendum does not. We are not changing the constitution.

 

[Paradoxica]

Why a referendum? This is not Ireland or the US, where the constitution has (or used to should I say) the traditional def. of marriage.
A plebiscite makes sense; a referendum does not. We are not changing the constitution.

The thing is that most constitutions don't take into account progress in STEAM, which is troubling for other reasons I will not go into here.

Societal changes, however, are also not taken into account for when constitutions are formed. (Think digital privacy and the Internet)

 

[dan964]

Societal changes, however, are also not taken into account for when constitutions are formed. (Think digital privacy and the Internet)

Although some constitutions are very vague as well.
Just think of the reasons for referendums in the past such as 1967. While on this issue, there isn't much mentioned.

 

[mcchicken]

How is letting one person satisfy his lust to die and satisfying one person's desire to kill hurting anyone or impacting anyone else's quality of life?

If you think a consensual marriage equates to a consensual stab in the face then I am not even going to waste my time telling you how messed up your logic is lol

Why do you care if Adam and Steve get married???

 

[Paradoxica]

If you think a consensual marriage equates to a consensual stab in the face then I am not even going to waste my time telling you how messed up your logic is lol

Why do you care if Adam and Steve get married???

Apparently that leads to chasing desires, even though homosexuality itself has been legal for some time now.

 

[mcchicken]

Also

How is letting one person satisfy his lust to die and satisfying one person's desire to kill hurting anyone or impacting anyone else's quality of life?

Since you said you are not talking about euthanasia and that Person B/Jill simply wants to die, then I would argue that it would still be murder. There are lots of suicidal people (who aren't terminally ill and yet suffer from constant mental/emotional pain rather than physical) and I believe that as horrible and unfair as it is for them to have to experience depression, it is not mean they should take their lives because *insert cheesy af music idgaf* it does get better*.

*most of the time

In the name of progressiveness, does freedom of speech get eroded for those who do not agree with the majority?

This is such an interesting point. I mean, I can't very well say "everyone who is against SSM has the wrong opinion and should stfu" because that is "wrong." But if someone ran down the street wearing a swastika saying Hail Hitler because they want the other millions of Jews, gays and every other minority in 1940s Europe to die as well... Well, how can that opinion not be wrong? And yet, it is their opinion...

But yolo we're in Australia we don't have freedom of speech

jk we sorta do but not rly

Apparently that leads to chasing desires, even though homosexuality itself has been legal for some time now.

lol god forbid people want to explore their sexuality and Eve wants to go lick a bitch

 

[Kolmias]

lol god forbid people want to explore their sexuality and Eve wants to go lick a bitch

There is probably a Christian porn site where you can watch this somewhere out in the Internet.

 

[Flop21]

Have you been in a situation where you almost died to make this claim that you don't want to live forever?



Who's it harming? Technically Jill wants to die so its not really harming her its giving her a blessing?



But why don't they? You'll be making two people happy rather than none? Isn't that atheist logic... that they must do anything to obtain maximum pleasure ? You just say that because you can't reply to it

wtf lol are you serious


I hope you have fun spending your so limited time on earth following imaginary rules.

 

[Paradoxica]

wtf lol are you serious


I hope you have fun spending your so limited time on earth following imaginary rules.

It seems drsoccerball himself is not immune to the fallacy of hasty generalisation. Irony flips the bird at all of us.

 

[dan964]

There is probably a Christian porn site where you can watch this somewhere out in the Internet.

highly doubt it.

 

[Paradoxica]

highly doubt it.

Given there exists porn that has patriotism running through it (long story short: google), I am fairly certain what Kolmias mentioned, exists.

 

[Queenroot]

highly doubt it.

Highly likely have u seen what the Internet holds lol

 

[nerdasdasd]

highly doubt it.

rule 34a of the internet.

Porn exists for every and every single topic that exists.