toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[zippy2006]

A nice relevant clip:

Gay "rights"?

 

[Son of Jack]

Secular principles can be agreed upon without all of us converting to one faith.

:think: Only if one is willing to make those secular principles very broad. If you're speaking generally, then I'll grant you the point (not that it matters much ).

 

[Uberpod1]

A nice relevant clip:

Whatever you do DO NOT google "santorum"!! lain:

PS: Zippy is the bard of obfuscation. I so wish a person of talent from the other side would step forward and address Town Heretic and Rex with intellectual integrity.

 

[Silas Parsnip]

I have avoided these questions but will try to answer now.
Same sex erotic love is completely foreign to me. Years ago, a gay friend of mine said that heterosexual erotic love was completely foreign to him.
Marriage is a civil contract. It guarantees certain protections under the law to the party's involved.
Our country enforces separation of church and state. So, if the state decides to legalize same-sex marriages I have no quarrel with it.
I believe that religious denominations have every right to bless only those nuptials which conform to their stated requirements.
A certain percentage of the world's population is born with sexual orientation which is outside of the norm.
Marriage ought to be restricted to consenting adults.
I am opposed to polygamy which has older men amassing hareems of young girls.

The family is, I believe, the foundation of society. I like to keep it simple.

Marriage is a civil contract. If the Church wishes or agrees to bless that contract, the matter is entirely up to the Elders of the Church concerned.
I would prefer the practise of many Orthodox nations: Couples get married at the town hall, then repair to their Church for a blessing.

Here in Australia we remain, right-wingers and left-wingers alike, opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage. (Excluding the extremists in either direction)
We don't have the same level of separation of Church and state as in the USA. It is neccessary for a person, in good conscience, to pray the Lord's Prayer if they are to take a seat in any legislature.
We have a self-proclaimed atheist Prime Minister, who lives with her partner without the benefit of marriage, who refuses to allow legislation to even discuss same-sex marriage, nor same-sex civil union; and who overturned legislation to introduce them in territorial legislatures; standing firm with her right-wing opposition.
Yet same-sex couples already have the same legal rights as de facto marriages. You live together for two years, you have an equal right to the community property.
Riddle me that?
As for polygamy - and polyandry - absolutely illegal (as it should be). and religious organisations that promulgate or condone them are pursued by the criminal courts. Which leaves us with the slightly bizarre situation that folk who have entered into irregular marriages outside the country (mainly immigrants from the Middle East and the USA) cannot seek redress or mediation through the family court, but their children can, if the court chooses to grant them emancipation.

I believe that the individual, rather than the family, is the foundation of a just society, otherwise the unmarried may be treated as second-class citizens. But I, too, like to keep it simple.

 

[zippy2006]

Rather, I noted it can be but isn't necessarily. I even set out an example of a law without any discernible moral foundation.

Well, no you haven't. Equality is a moral notion, is it not?

...With religion written into and between every line

Not particularly, which is rather important and goes along with my part that equity and not a particular religious morality is at the heart of our intentionally secular compact.

Maybe you ought to read it again :idunno:

What is the difference between my moral idea and your own?

We'd have to talk about that, but you're the only one advocating either of our notions should control the other's in law.

It's simply not true. You argue that your notion of "equality" should control the other in law but not my notion of marriage and have consistently failed to give a reason separating them.

We, the people, of the United States. I'm ready to argue we are the best expression and are the latest to take those ideas and run with them substantively.

Best expression of what exactly? :liberals:

What objective standard of morality are you appealing to?

Again, not my argument.

Then you've already forfeited. You are appealing to moral law in your idea of equity (and a number of other notions unnamed).

Was Hitler at the latest and best? The logical conclusion of your position in this thread is to try to set up a moral system apart from God, which is oddly enough precisely what you poke fun of atheists for.

No. The logical conclusion of my argument is found in the Constitution and the ongoing illustration of its principle through application.

And I've asked you at least four times now to elaborate on what that notion precisely is. Looking at the Constitution reveals it is religious, you've done nothing to show otherwise, nor have you given anything resembling an argument for equality absent religion.

You still haven't given any reason whatsoever other than "that's the way it is now." Bell-bottoms were cool in the 60's. Things change.

Simply not the case. I've set out my understanding and illustrated it more than once. I invite you or the reader to peruse our dialog. Prego.

You haven't. At all.

But considering the answer you did give, how do we settle that difference between men within society?

So as to not waste time, how do you mean this, particularly?

Men have different views on what is moral and therefore what should be enforced by the law. How do we settle that difference? I propose a vote. :idea:

It isn't rhetorical at all. It is absolutely necessary if one wants to try to uphold any sort of objective morality

Which wasn't his stated aim at all... and objective in what sense?

Sure it was. Objective in the sense that appealing to the Constitution actually means something. Is your argument no more than that which is "self-evident"--which is demonstrably different for different generations and individuals within each generation--is what we go by?

It doesn't matter if his concept was different, the fact is the founders saw that God was required.

No reference to Christ in those documents. No calling on Allah, or Yaweh. That's important. That is, your particular notion wasn't supported and neither was mine or the Rabbi's, etc.

Stop being difficult. The appeal to an overreaching authority with respect to law and morality, God, is not inconsequential. Specific conceptions do not matter as long as those conceptions entail the equality that is intended, which is precisely what it does. The only logical reason we are equal is because of God, and the Constitution reflects that. Attempt to show otherwise if you'd like.

I'm no more interested in debating Aristotle on his notions than you felt required to debate the merit of Locke.

Which is precisely my point. Locke isn't definitive in the least. Are Hobbes and Aristotle? Rawls? Locke's was grounded in theism from what I understand. The idea that human equality, a moral notion, can be derived from strict logic is a non-starter. At least in the secular realm, you cannot get an ought from an is. You will find the moral positivists like Rawls or Locke or the founding fathers incorporating a notion of natural law or metaphysical goodness or blatant religion. Without that value judgment you cannot derive law and moral ideas to ground society. I'd say your whole venture here is a non-starter.

You haven't presented it and I don't need to address it to make or sustain my part. If you need it to attempt to counter me then you'll have to do more than suggest you have a big brother who can clean my clock.

Neither have you :idunno: In fact I simply followed suit. My point is made by the fact that Locke simply isn't considered a final authority on the subject; even your basis comes down to a vote.

Why is one man equal to another?

We're born into the same state, as equals.

That's another mere assertion. Equal in what way? Are animals born into a state of equality?

By what claim do you establish an inherent inequity of right?

I claim no secularly derived right. I'd say the fact is obvious both from historical ethics and political philosophy. You are the one making a positive assertion.

Do you honestly believe you are able to give a sound secular basis for morality?

I'm not attempting it.

There's your problem!

Except many thinkers would argue that the "state of nature" is precisely where we are unequal, and therefore we form society to protect us from such a state of nature.

Good for them? I differ.

And why ought we take your side and not theirs? You don't even consider such things "voting matters."

Again, you've given no argument.

Horsefeathers, you king-o-declaration you. :chuckle: I've been setting out exactly that from beginning to end.

:chuckle: You simply haven't, you oughtn't even deny it. You've appealed to Locke and claimed that we are born equal, without explaining what you mean by that or giving a why at all.

In precisely what way do you believe we are equal in a state of nature?

In right. I am born free and with my own will.

What rights? :idunno: What rights exist in a state of nature? Are there rights in the animal kingdom? In what way does having a will entail rights? What does being born "free" even mean?

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

What is the relevant difference between a secular moral principle and a religious moral principle?

Secular principles can be agreed upon without all of us converting to one faith.

We are talking about law and morality. To take any stance in this realm requires a non-value-neutral origin. Logic doesn't map cleanly to morality. We don't disagree on the law of non-contradiction but we do disagree strongly and often on moral issues.

So a relevant difference would be one that qualitatively separates a secular value axiom from a religious value axiom. Your folly is the same as TH's along with the average modern. You've somehow convinced yourself that morality is "secular" (derived strictly from logic rather than personal non-logical/provable values). Once you realize that morality (and therefore law, such as the law that makes us equal in this country) cannot be purely secular, your whole house of cards falls.

:e4e:

 

[Silas Parsnip]

Agin, but...

Agin, but...

Against same-sex marriage, but I get enraged by some of the arguments some otherwise worthy opponents use:
One of our Australian Episcopal Archbishops recently announced that gay marriage would lead to incestuous marriage becoming legal. Can anyone find any logic in this?

 

[Persephone66]

Against same-sex marriage, but I get enraged by some of the arguments some otherwise worthy opponents use:
One of our Australian Episcopal Archbishops recently announced that gay marriage would lead to incestuous marriage becoming legal. Can anyone find any logic in this?

The same logic is used in the States, sounds just as silly. If it's not that tired cliché, it's paedophilia or bestiality.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, no you haven't.

Sure I did. Only just.

Equality is a moral notion, is it not?

Not necessarily and one man may imply immorality in the notion while the next counts it a virtue, approached that way. All equality before the law requires is the understanding I set out, which isn't a moral argument at all, in foundation or execution, though it doubtless has moral resonance for those impacted.

Maybe you ought to read it again :idunno:

Maybe you ought to come up with an actual counter/response. Else, answered.

It's simply not true. You argue that your notion of "equality" should control the other in law but not my notion of marriage and have consistently failed to give a reason separating them.

In order: it's demonstrably true (I demonstrated it); it isn't "my notion" but the law's; no idea what you mean by "but not my notion of marriage" since I'm arguing your posit advances inequality and should be an offense to that same law; and horsefeathers.

Best expression of what exactly? :liberals:

Go back and read the post prior. Prego.

Then you've already forfeited.

Well, no. You think the law should be a popularity contest, deny equity in its principle with the stand and seek to enforce your version of a moral compass upon it. I stand with equity of right and the law as that instrument.

You are appealing to moral law in your idea of equity (and a number of other notions unnamed).

No, but I understand why you need for that to be the case. Else, I set out the contrary and illustrated it more than once.

And I've asked you at least four times now to elaborate on what that notion precisely is.

Short of literally reducing this to pictograph I don't know how to be any clearer...

Looking at the Constitution reveals it is religious,

Complete and utter nonsense. Like suggesting that if I say a prayer before dinner it is transformed into a religious celebration.

you've done nothing to show otherwise, nor have you given anything resembling an argument for equality absent religion.

Errant on its face, supra and prior.

You haven't. At all.

I have. Repeatedly. :chuckle:

Men have different views on what is moral and therefore what should be enforced by the law. How do we settle that difference? I propose a vote. :idea:

I don't agree with your premise (that the law is only an extension of moral argument). I've set out what the law is and preserves between men. Again, we differ in the foundation and function and there's nothing for it.

Sure it was.

Just so you don't think I skipped reading it, but you're hammering that same error. Supra.

Stop being difficult. The appeal to an overreaching authority with respect to law and morality, God, is not inconsequential.

Never said it was.

The only logical reason we are equal is because of God, and the Constitution reflects that. Attempt to show otherwise if you'd like.

I already did in my born to equality/distinguished by operations of will bit, to shorthand it. I omit the next part, which is raised and answered above and prior. The point of my answer was to note a convenient selectivity on your part in declaring Locke done without particular effort or evidence then suggesting I should do more for the next fellow.

Neither have you :idunno: In fact I simply followed suit.

Just a note: you have this backwards.

My point is made by the fact that Locke simply isn't considered a final authority on the subject; even your basis comes down to a vote.

He wasn't offered as a final authority. You wanted background. I gave you an illustration from nature independent of that note. And you're mistaking the necessity of agreement in foundation of a compact with a conference of truth. That wasn't the Founder's understanding. It isn't mine.

That's another mere assertion. Equal in what way?

No. It's an observation. I set out more particulars earlier. I am born with my own mind and will and the ability to exercise them. That's the beginning for any man. The relation and distinctions that flow from that exercise begin the division among us but is preceded by that indisputable fact.

I claim no secularly derived right. I'd say the fact is obvious both from historical ethics and political philosophy. You are the one making a positive assertion.

I'm noting what the law is, how it functions, and how you mean to alter that.

There's your problem!

Dealing with the itchy inquisition in waiting?

And why ought we take your side and not theirs?

Self interest, at the root. Or, because they're confusing right and principle with biological function, mostly.

:chuckle: You simply haven't, you oughtn't even deny it. You've appealed to Locke and claimed that we are born equal, without explaining what you mean by that or giving a why at all.

About as wrong as you could get it. Noting Locke isn't appealing to him. I set out my part and did so again within this post. I haven't claimed, I've set out how we are born equal prior and above. I omit the last because it's answered above/prior here.

:e4e:

 

[bybee]

The same logic is used in the States, sounds just as silly. If it's not that tired cliché, it's paedophilia or bestiality.

It's called "Shotgunning" and it does manage to influence many of the dullards out there. Some have even fallen off their bar stools in outrage!

 

[Granite]

It's called "Shotgunning" and it does manage to influence many of the dullards out there. Some have even fallen off their bar stools in outrage!

:rotfl:

I understand the concern of gay marriage opponents. I do. Their world is changing and they're unnerved. But they don't seem to realize they're repeating the same mistakes as anyone who's ever stood in the way of progress, and that they're on the wrong side of history.

People don't seem to learn...anything.

 

[rexlunae]

We are talking about law and morality. To take any stance in this realm requires a non-value-neutral origin. Logic doesn't map cleanly to morality. We don't disagree on the law of non-contradiction but we do disagree strongly and often on moral issues.

I never claimed that some sort of valueless morality was possible. But there are values which transcend religious disposition. These are human values, and they need no further authority to resonate with people of normal moral capacity.

So a relevant difference would be one that qualitatively separates a secular value axiom from a religious value axiom.

I think the fact that they don't require that we all convert religions to reach consensus, which people are remarkably resistant to doing, is a fine difference. I'll admit that it doesn't eliminate conflicting values, which would probably end up being very oppressive anyway, but it gives us some sort of common ground to argue from. But of course, the compromise that must be made is the one that TH has been advocating all along; that the religious sentiments of one shouldn't dictate to another.

Your folly is the same as TH's along with the average modern. You've somehow convinced yourself that morality is "secular" (derived strictly from logic rather than personal non-logical/provable values). Once you realize that morality (and therefore law, such as the law that makes us equal in this country) cannot be purely secular, your whole house of cards falls.

And your folly is failing to learn from the sectarian conflicts following the Reformation. Or in any number of conflicts in many parts of the world today, for that matter. Given the choice between the two, I like my folly better, as poorly as you seem to understand it.

 

[zippy2006]

Against same-sex marriage, but I get enraged by some of the arguments some otherwise worthy opponents use:
One of our Australian Episcopal Archbishops recently announced that gay marriage would lead to incestuous marriage becoming legal. Can anyone find any logic in this?

Actually it makes perfect sense if you look past your bias. Why should the government prevent cousins from marrying if that is what they want to do? It is the absolute logical conclusion of your position, he is just stating an obvious fact. "Why should cousins be denied the right to marry!" The same is happening elsewhere with polygamists. Clearly marriage has nothing to do with reproduction or reproductive status according to those who want gay "marriage."

 

[Granite]

Actually it makes perfect sense if you look past your bias. Why should the government prevent cousins from marrying if that is what they want to do? It is the absolute logical conclusion of your position, he is just stating an obvious fact. "Why should cousins be denied the right to marry!" The same is happening elsewhere with polygamists. Clearly marriage has nothing to do with reproduction or reproductive status according to those who want gay "marriage."

I can't think of any significant case that can be made against cousins marrying at all--the "ick" factor is irrelevant and the genetic risks involved have been greatly overblown.

 

[MaryContrary]

I can't think of any significant case that can be made against cousins marrying at all--the "ick" factor is irrelevant and the genetic risks involved have been greatly overblown.

Pretty sure God doesn't have a problem with cousins marrying. Don't see any mention to the negative in the bible anyway. :idunno:

At least, He didn't, anyway.

I'd take a close look at those genetic risks. Have we, and to what degree, degenerated genetically since the days those biblical laws addressing this subject were written? Were genetic risks the only reason those laws were written?

I'd want to take a serious look at exactly why God forbade relations between various close relatives, discover the principle(s) being addressed there and determine the matter based primarily on that. The principle's the thing, after all.

But then I'm a Christian, so I have kooky ideas about laws and what they're supposed to do.

 

[Granite]

Pretty sure God doesn't have a problem with cousins marrying. Don't see any mention to the negative in the bible anyway.

That's correct.

I'd take a close look at those genetic risks. Have we, and to what degree, degenerated genetically since the days those biblical laws addressing this subject were written?

The risk of genetic deficiency amongst consanguine couples exists, it's simply not as bad as it's been stereotypically made out to be.

But then I'm a Christian, so I have kooky ideas about laws and what they're supposed to do.

This much is certain.

 

[MaryContrary]

The risk of genetic deficiency amongst consanguine couples exists, it's simply not as bad as it's been stereotypically made out to be.

Is the risk high enough? So that government should step in and say, "Yeah. We're not going to do that."

I'm guessing probably not.

This much is certain.

:thumb:

Oh, better throw something at the OP. I'm derailing threads again, I see.

Um, yeah. Homosexual marriage. No such thing. And I oppose recognizing it as something that exists in reality. So there.

 

[Granite]

Is the risk high enough? So that government should step in and say, "Yeah. We're not going to do that."

No, not that I'm aware. This is a subject I'm researching for something I'm working on, and the risks do not pose an issue for public health.

Um, yeah. Homosexual marriage. No such thing.

Uh, wrong.

 

[Persephone66]

I'm a vegetarian. I do not eat meat and therefore feel eating meat should be outlawed.

Eating meat makes me very sick to my stomach, therefore it should be outlawed.
Because it makes me sick, I believe it is unnatural, therefore it should be outlawed.
Eating meat also goes against my personal beliefs as well as the personal beliefs of others, therefore it should be outlawed.
When I see others eating meat around me, I consider it to be an attack against my more civilised eating habits, therefore it should be outlawed.
You can argue that animals eat meat, making it perfectly natural. But animals also kill their own young. Humans should not act like animals that eat meat, therefore it should be outlawed.
If we allow people to eat meat, next people will want cannibalism legalised, therefore it should be outlawed.

If this sounds completely asinine to you, realize that arguments that parallel these against same-sex marriage sound the same to me.

The reality is that I am a vegetarian, but I do not feel that eating meat should be outlawed. I just don't eat meat, that simple. I'm not looking to shove soy down everyone's throat.

Just a thought.

 

[Quincy]

Some of you should watch this video from 2:50 on and look this 80s metrosexual possibly homosexual man in the eyes as he sings. :devil:

People Are People by Depeche Mode