MonteZuma

If there was a universally accepted philosophical viewpoint, then I'd agree with you. But there isn't. In nature there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are products of the human mind. If you subscribe to certain religions, then you might believe that right and wrong are determined by God or some other supernatural source. People have a very strong survival instinct. I've seen experiments where babies were placed on elevated gl!@#$%^&* sheets...They freaked out. A fear of heights is a natural instinct. The fight or flight response is a natural instinct.. But I think you are right. It is semantics. Based on some of the comments you have made about deaths in Iraq, I'd say that you often subscribe to this theory as well. I don't. A conundrum that I have read goes like this: A train with 100 passengers is on a collision course with another train, also carrying 100 passengers, that is moving in the opposite direction. Both trains are traveling at top speed. If you do nothing, 200 people will be killed. You have another option though. If you switch the tracks, you can divert the runaway train into a siding where there are 20 track workers maintaining the line. If you divert the train, 120 people will die, including the track workers, but the 100 passengers on the other train will survive. In mathematical terms you will save lives. If you do divert the train, are you a murderer, because you caused the death of 20 track workers who would otherwise be alive, or are you a hero because you saved 100 train passengers? Based on your definition (maximum survival) I guess survivalist morality would tell you that the right thing to do is divert the train. I tend to disagree. I think that there is no universally right or wrong decision here. I don't think that I would divert the train. Imo, that does not make me immoral. Given that nature has no right or wrong, there can be no absolute truth when it comes to morality. There can only be opinion - IMO ( ). Religion adds a new dimension to this though. Some people believe that it is ALWAYS acceptable to ensure your own survival, no matter what the cost to others. Strangely enoughj, I like them. Up to a point. Fwiw, I don't think this discussion has gotten out of hand.

This is the third time this test has been posted here Astro As per usual, I'm sitting with Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama..... Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

Buddhism is the coolest religion.

Interesting observation. I think I agree. I disagree. Humans have superior intellect, but our survival 'instinct' is just as strong as that of other animals.

The benefit that you can get by helping someone who is suicidal can be as basic as receiving satisfaction from knowing that you saved someone from death and helped move them towards a happy, healthy life again. You don't have to be religious to believe that helping other people without receiving any personal advantage can be emotionally rewarding. That reward may often be worth the risk !@#$%^&*ociated with getting involved.

Maybe. And maybe I've missed the point, but people can be suicidal for irrational reasons. Sometimes people just need a little help, and then they can contribute to society again. Come to think of it, I think some people become suicidal because they pay too much attention to other people's needs and not enough to their own.

Yeah...This is a little OT, and I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. My view is that if boys and girls learn to treat themselves and others with respect, sex ed. (and drug ed., etc, etc) is much less problematic, imo. I think it is almost impossible to learn that stuff at school. You start to learn this just after birth. Your outlook on the world can be totally screwed up for the rest of your life by age 3 if your parents are too focussed on mismanaging their crappy relationship to meet the baby's needs. And I don't mean food and shelter....I mean emotional needs. The wiring and chemistry of your brain forms at that early stage. Ongoing family problems just make it worse. It is better for a child to grow up in a single-parent or homosexual parents household (or perhaps even an orphanage!) than to live in a dysfunctional household.

I'm under the impression that there is a shortage of kids up for adoption. The authorities can pick and choose. Afaik, the kids that bounce around from foster parent to foster parent are those are not eligible for adoption, or those with nasty behaviour problems. I'm not saying that homosexual couples can't make good 'parents', or that all heterosexual couples always make good parents. But it is important that 'straight' kids learn how men and women function together in relationships. In a healthy family situation, that is best achieved when kids watch mum and dad interact. I believe that boys and girls are advantaged by having a positive masculine and feminine role model.

Good point Astro. It is as though there is some force at work driving a wedge between people over this and other issues (abortion?, war on terror?). The force doesn't seem to be as strong in some countries (Canada, western Europe, New Zealand). I can't quite put my finger on it. I don't think the 'force' is simply religious or political. I suspect that there is another cultural/historical aspect to this.

Based on the scores, I tied, but the quiz successfully identified that I am agnostic, so I guess it worked. Why did I score highly with Islam? Not sure. Probably because I do not believe that God is a Trinity, that Jesus is God, or that Salvation is through the death of Jesus. Obviously this is also why I scored so low with Christianity. I believe that if there is a God, good works will bring salvation, not worship. But that is at odds with Islamic principles (eg the five pillars of Islam). Another set of questions that probably gave me a higher score with Islam is that I believe that people are inherently good, rather than inherently sinful. According to one website: "Christianity says that man is born in sin, while according to Islam he is sinless at his birth." Terrorism is a corruption of Islam, not true Islam, so I wouldn't worry about the bomb thing. I'd begin a talk about the IRA and catholics here if I didn't think your comments were tongue in cheek. According to the text, the quiz author defines satanism as something that isn't inherently evil. Wikipedia explains it very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

A P of A is a do!@#$%^&*ent that authorises someone you nominate to make decisions on your behalf...

yeah....This is religious.....but it will be interesting to see how others score.... http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907 You scored as agnosticism. You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe. Islam 67% agnosticism 67% atheism 63% Buddhism 46% Paganism 46% Satanism 42% Judaism 29% Hinduism 29% Christianity 25%

Yeah. As Astro said, the gay partner presently has no legal rights. Hence gay couples are unfairly disadvantaged. A medical power of attorney is a work-around that could help for an expected medical condition.

What Astro said. Aileron. You are scared of the unknown. You've said it yourself. You call this 'fractal theory', but there is nothing scientific about your view at all. There is absolutely no evidence supporting your hypothesis. You have totally ignored the link that Astro posted that outlines very clear reasons why gay people need some form of recognition for their relationships. You can argue whether or not it should be called a 'marriage', but no fair-mined person can argue that gay people are not disadvantaged in certain situations because they don't have a marriage certificate or some other form of legal acknowledgment of their special relationship with their partner. The fact of the matter is that a legal union or marriage between two homosexuals will not affect you in the slightest - except that it offends your Christian sensibilities. Thats ok. People can argue for or against anything they like on principle, or on the basis of religious or moral grounds, but claims that gay unions/marriages will have catastrophic social consequences are not supported by the facts. For proof, take a look at countries or provinces that already have gay marriages or unions.

If gay marriage was introduced, how would it change your life? the point is that we shouldn't underestimate the scale of the changes this issue would cause and the fact that this indeed does affect everybody.How will gay marriage affect heterosexuals? What the example was of is that gay marriage doesn't grant couples any rights, it only denys the rights of those who don't approve of gay marriage...Rubbish. Did you click Asto's link? Marriage confers legal rights and responsibilities. the point there was the gay marriage law didn't give the gay couple any rights...it just denied the banker the right to give them the 7% loan. They didn't have a right to a 6% loan...its the banker's money, he gets to decide what to do with it as long as there isn't some government issued certificate in his face ordering him to do otherwise.And I'm saying that this is irrelevant. Why do people cheat on their spouses then? If marriage was about sex, they would have as much as they ever needed and wouldn't want to go back to somebody elseSome people get divorced because the sex is not so great any more . People get married for lots of reasons. Sex, commitment, conformity, recognition. In the case of gay marriage, the issues that I am concerned about are commitment and recognition. For legal and financial reasons, the state should have a mechanism for recognising an intimate union between two people of the same sex. Refer to Astro's link. I'd call it fear of the unknown, or paranoia. No. It was the norm. Not now. But it was for hundreds or thousands of years. I'm sure when someone made a law saying that men can't beat their wives anymore there were people who claimed that society would collapse. Well. It didn't. Although it sure as !@#$%^&* did make it harder for me to find someone willing to iron my shirts! No. What it does is debunk the idea that 'tradition' is something that should always be followed. I disagree. We don't live in a definite world. We live in an uncertain world. I think this is OT, but if nobody has a clue about what the supernatural world is, then everybody could be wrong. The problem with religions such as Christianity is that they are entirely based on faith. Therefore they can never be proven nor disproven. I can argue for the existence of one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people-eaters too....and that can never be proven or disproven either. But we certainly can argue for and against their existence - if we choose to.

The English language is in a constant state of flux. So? Suppose he doesn't believe in gay marriage. A gay couple walks into the bank and demands a 6% loan. He has the right to say "Screw you, I don't believe in gay marriage, you get the 7% loan." However, add gay marriage being legal and a Certificate of Marriage, and he would be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to treat that gay couple as any other marriage no matter what his opinion is.Is this an example of how you think the social and economic fabric of the world will be destroyed by gay marriage? I think you need to find a better example than this. The Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality, but not gay marriage. Their practice of homosexuality mostly occured in the military as a way for their soldiers to p!@#$%^&* the time.Checkers is a way of 'passing the time'. Homosexual sex is something else. Marriage is about family, not sex.Rubbish. Many people get married because their church or their family forbids sex outside of marriage. Many people who get married have no intention of having children. Ask a 40-50 year old single man and you'll probably get the same response. Rubbish. Gay sex and homosexual sex are both forms of entertainment. They can both be acts of love as well (or so I'm told ). Bingo. Why can't a homosexual couple be as much a part of society as a heterosexual couple? What are you afraid of? Traditionally, women are the property of their husbands, whether it is part of your definition or not. Yeah. "Once or twice". LOL In theory. So does science, in theory. So does every other religion, in theory. Your truth is not my truth.

You think gay marriage is going to kill us off? How? The notion that women are the property of men is also part of the 'traditional' definition of marriage. Tradition doesn't make it right. What do you mean by weak gene pool? The tradition of monogamy in the west pre-dates the women's rights movement. Mormons are atypical. Apes don't marry. Whether or not an ape has the same mate for life or multiple mates, and whether an ape is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual is irrelevant to this debate. For a start, apes don't have retirement savings. How will gay marriage affect you?

Yeah. I guess you are right and was going to say something to this effect myself, but it gets a bit hairy. It could be the case that anyone that didn't recognise a gay 'marriage' might be guilty of some form of unlawful discrimination. Maybe? Yeah. I noticed this. Agree 100% with this and the rest of your post. Well said.

I don't think marriage has been around for millions of years. Tens of thousands maybe. In any case, the idea of marriage has been revolutionised since the 1960s. It isn't the same ins!@#$%^&*ution that it was. I don't think gay marriage supporters are trying to change the concept of marriage. Men and women can still get married as they have done for thousands of years. Heterosexuals shouldn't feel threatened by this. It does. Why should same sex partners be denied the rights that opposite sex partners have with regards to accessing retirement savings and decision-making in critical medical situations? - for example. Yes it does....as above. No bank has any right to call anybody a freeloader. All a bank needs to decide is whether or not it will lawfully make money from a transaction. Whether the man has 12 wives/concubines/sex partners/close female friends is irrelevant, unless it affects his ability to fulfill his contract. You learn about that through tax returns, payslips and !@#$%^&*ets, liabilities, income and expenditure statements - not by installing peep holes in people's bedrooms or making subjective statements about personal relationships. Why do you care so much if Fred and Neville want to get married? How will it affect you? Actually gay people can have kids without a medical procedure. They just need to introduce a third party. As it turns out, I think giving tax breaks to encourage procreation is wrong. Gay couples don't want tax breaks to have kids. This is a red herring. What they want is their special relationship with their significant other to be recognised. Undoubtedly there are some homosexuals fighting for the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to children, but I think that this is an entirely separate debate. I've already stated some of my views on that. On the flip side though, if a gay couple do find themselves raising a child (after a divorce or whatever), then they should have the same access to child support services that a heterosexual couple would have. The child's needs come first - ALWAYS.

While I am a supporter of the principle of gay marriage, as a New Zealander I have no motivation to involve myself one way or another in the legal aspects of the US cons!@#$%^&*ution. How about an amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi banning gay marriage? Fwiw, [edit] I agree with Greased Lightning [/edit]. The specifics of homosexuality and marriage do not belong in any cons!@#$%^&*ution. I think the cons!@#$%^&*ution should be more generalised. It is probably a state/provincial issue in the US and other countries (like Australia) anyway. I don't think federal governments should over-involve themselves in state affairs.

Basically, I think that a child has a better chance of growing up well-adjusted if the child has a mother and a father. I think in almost every cir!@#$%^&*stance, a child would choose to be placed in a heterosexual, nuclear family situation. The child's needs come first.

If catholics or other religious ins!@#$%^&*utions want to ban gay denominational marriages then that should be up to them. Civil marriages are a whole different kettle of fish and I'm not sure what she be done about that. There needs to be more debate. But I do believe that there should be some form of gay union, so that gay partners can access pension benefits/superannuation and be treated as a spouse in most situations. I don't believe that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Maybe you are right, but Saddam's former opponents have about as much power and support now as they are evr gonna get and things don't look good. There is no unity in Iraq. That is (and was) one of the main problems. Usually, but not always. Vietnam. Despite his military power, what Saddam needed more than anything was public support or public ambivalence. The events in Poland, East Germany and other soviet bloc countries in the 80s and 90s showed what happens when ambivalence is replaced with idealism and determination. Like in Vietnam? That piece of paper will not solve Iraq's problems at all. The US administration might use it as an excuse to begin a pullout (or pretend to begin a pull out to placate the US and Iraqi public, but Iraq will go to !@#$%^&* in a handbasket without massive ongoing support. If that is the problem, then the solution is to convince them that you can be trusted. Come to think of it, that is why I think the Palestinian issue is so important. Everyone else does matter. Somewhere in there is the next batch of suicide bombers. No. If a financial advisor tells you that a particular stock is going to be the next best thing, and you lose all your life savings when the stock fails to meet expectations, you can't blame the advisor. Decision-makers are responsible for !@#$%^&*essing the quality of the advice they are given and the uncertainty !@#$%^&*ociated with it. It was always clear that Bush was never going to get the support he wanted. He went to Iraq knowing full well who was in the 'coalition of the willing' and what they offered in support.

Interesting discussion. Sometimes I think it is useful to intervene, but we gotta make sure that we dont: a ) throw the baby out with the bathwater. Iraq was relatively stable before the invasion. Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorist activity. Now that Saddam is gone, Iraq is a shambles. Despite what the spin doctors say, there is no bright future on the horizon for Iraq. b ) cut off our noses to spite our face. The US removed Saddam from power, but the threat of terrorism is greater than ever. National and international security has not improved. Occupying Iraq has been expensive in terms of money, lives and other resources. All of this effort could have been channelled into other projects that might have been more effective for reducing terrorism, such as alleviating poverty in the developing world, resolving the Palestinian issue, flushing out Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan, pressuring or supporting arab nations to deal with extremists, etc, etc, etc. We should have intervened in other ways. Sanctions, inspections, surveillance and the threat of overwhelming force if Iraq stepped out of line on the international stage or against her own people (eg the kurds and the shi-ites(sp?)). All of the das!@#$%^&*ly deeds that Saddam had committed could be examined (without introducing bs evidence like baby milk factories portrayed as chemical weapons factories) and brought before the UN - not as evidence for an invasion, but just to make sure that people inside and outside of Iraq, especially in the muslim world, know what the regime is all about. If this was managed better, the US and other western nations might be viewed as protectors rather than oppressors and thousands of US soldiers would still be alive. Tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive too.

Hey. I'm not all-seeing or all-knowing. Btw, you are right...the only group I hadn'y heard of was the 'Abbasids' - and of course the Tylonians. But ancient history isn't my favourite topic, so I didn't bother checking.