Unownmew's Waterfall
Hilarious picture though, I find it very descriptive of the issue at hand.
Also, what's the point of being God if you can't mess with people every now and then for fun? Surely living in a palace of precious gemstones surrounded by adoring servants and heavenly angels for all eternity gets boring every now and then.
That is a very good question, and I'd like to know the answer myself.
Hopefully the good he does is stir up Americans in towards reforming their current unconstitutional bureaucratic government back to the Constitutional Republic it was intended to be.
Otherwise, I'm not sure even my philosophies can excuse him...
Better to wait until they've already determined such a route. Up until that time, they still have the potential to change and do good, and to kill them before then is to deny them that chance.
Even evil actions, can result in much good. For instance, that one "hero" who comforted a lady injured in the blast, and assisted in medical actions. He would never have had that chance to do such good, if such evil had not been purpetrated in the first place. Many who suffered in the Holocaust were made stronger and better people because of their experiences, and able to do much good for others around the world afterwards.
Kill an evil man, not a man with potential to do evil, for we all have that potential.
lol, true, but then the butterfly that grows out of them provides pollination and beauty, and the endurance of many other flowers in the future.
Human children eat and eat, and take and take without providing anything of substantive worth too, in a sense, yet when they are grown, they have the potential to effect much good in the world.
You're right, it isn't cyclical. It's fractal.
That one butterfly egg has the potential for MILLIONS more butterfly eggs, and by extension, millions of beautiful butterflies, which could have had a beautiful effect on the world in future generations, but because that one egg is destroyed, that beauty will never be seen.
Probably the most effective argument I've ever seen, wow. This could be the discovery of the century! If modern society still possessed normal and rational thought process, which unfortunately is highly questionable...
If you were to kill a butterfly egg, you would be destroying it's potential of becoming a beautiful butterfly and impacting the whole web of life on earth. That one butterfly you have destroyed could have pollinated hundreds of flowers, which would have been cause for hundreds more of flowers per each flower pollinated to grow, with would then present the opportunity for hundreds of flowers per those thousands further on and on down the life cycle forever.
Furthermore, because you destroyed that one butterfly, which otherwise could have lain another many butterfly eggs, which would have hatched and grown into many more butterflies, hundreds of thousands of flowers and future flowers will not be pollinated either.
And additionally, because you destroyed that one butterfly, that butterfly, or any of it's decendents might not flutter beautifully in front of a young child, who will look at it with wonder and awe, and grow up inspired by that butterfly to create great art, or perform acts of service, or become a wise leader, or simply share the joy he felt with his friends and family, uplifting their day and adding a little more joy in an ever increasingly joyless world.
Alternatively, that butterfly you destroyed might have been made into a meal by a bird or other predator, but such is the web of life. But because you have destroyed great potential, the world will never get to see it in it's full beauty and completion.
So too, if you kill a fetus, you have destroyed great potential for good and beauty in the world, as well as murdered all their potential decendents and whatever impact they might have had on the world.
What is bad about it, is that it's bastardizing the language, and the common law.
Marriage has always forever been strictly between male and female. If it has ever been anything else, that culture is long gone, erased from history, and not surprisingly either.
Even the Greeks and the Romans, widely accepting of homosexual and pedophilic relations, never granted a homosexual union sanction as a "marital" union (except in the case of a single mentally deranged king using governmental authority for privilege not granted to plebs)
Why? Because Marriage is not about love, or sex, or living together. Marriage is, and has always been, about procreation and the inheritance rights of offspring, and the ever continuance of human society. None of which apply to homosexuals. They can do what they want, but the legal benefits of marriage are for the Encouragement of procreative unions to keep society alive, and the other benefits are for the upbringing and inheritance rights of offspring that result from such procreative unions.
Technically, yes, they do.
And it is the idea of consummation that defines a marriage in the collective mind of humanity. That's not something you can just re-write on a whim, even if you have the law on your side redefining things as they aren't.
Actually, intercourse is more often defined as penetration by the penis, or simply a going in between things. Sexual intercourse defines a specific type of intercourse, that is, vaginal intercourse. it requires the modifier "Sexual" in order to narrow down the intended definition
A more appropriate word to use in this context would be Coitus or Vaginal Intercourse.
Cheeky, taking credit for my knowledge. :P
Actually, I'd like to refine my definition.
Consummation is sexual intercourse, but a more appropriate word to use which carries the same meaning, one which does not carry any social baggage or have a history of being definition warped:
Consummation is the first act of "coitus" between a man and a woman who have become married, and it is this act, which must be done in such a manner that procreation is possible, that validates the marriage contract.
Consummation of a marriage is the first act of sexual intercourse between a married couple. Consummation traditionally, is what validates the marriage contract. Any marriage not consummated, can be broken off without a divorce.
Thus, in relation to a union of two homosexuals, because it is physically impossible to have Sexual Intercourse between members the same gender (sexual intercourse being defined as the penetration of the vagina by the penis), any "marriage" contract between the homosexual parties, is legally unenforceable, it is null and void because the contract can not be "signed" so to speak.
We already have a working written and legal definition of marriage. It is codified in law, and mutually understood in the common law as well.
Such definition is explicitly "male and female." The problem comes when you start bastardizing the word by putting oxymoronic and paradoxical descriptors in front of it, "gay marriage," "straight marriage," "child marriage," etc. It's like saying a "pear apple" What is a "pear apple"?
If marriage is an apple, it most certainly can not be a pear. And yet that is what proponents of self-proclaimed "gay marriage" are really after, the bastardization of the definition and purpose of marriage.
It's not even a case of "inequality" because marriage is a legal privilege for a particular purpose. It applies equally to every person, every male is permitted to marry a female, and every female is permitted to marry a male. Thus equal application of the law.
