|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:12:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
quote:
And without an objective standard all is relative.
This does not seem to bother most of the people on this forum, though. Perhaps they recognize that relativity does not mean that there is no way of establishing some sort of intersubjective standard, and measuring according to that?
But in a materialistic universe the question always remains, who gets to establish the standard and why do they (however they are) get to establish the standard?
No one person gets to. It is a societal consensus.
This has been explained to you no fewer than three times, why is it such a difficult concept for you to understand?
Or are you working up to one of those "morality flows from a supreme being" assertions?
No one person gets to. It is a societal consensus
(bill) So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognized this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right?
They are still beholden to the Constitution, Bill. Some states want to make Christianity the state religion. Some have even written it into their state Constitutions. They were still beholden to the 14th amendment and those provisions within their state Constitutions were invalidated.
Article VI, Bill. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Amendment 14, Bill. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What part of this is so damn hard for you to understand?
Also, your contention that many states voted on a same sex marriage ban bill is demonstratably wrong. 13 states had it. Mostly Bible belt states and very conservative red states. (LA, MO, OK, UT, GA, KY, MS, AR, MI, MT, ND, OH, and OR) They passed by 70% average margins.
And while were at it, I'll provide something that you have not. A source for data on percentages for homosexual males can be found in the US National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS, Laumann, et al.) which pegs the percentage at 2.8%.
They are still beholden to the Constitution, Bill. Some states want to make Christianity the state religion. Some have even written it into their state Constitutions. They were still beholden to the 14th amendment and those provisions within their state Constitutions were invalidated.
(bill) I was told 103 times by many of the SFN crew that the consensus of society dictate what the morals shall be for said society weather an individual likes the morals or not. This is the SFN universal principle to how morality is dictated in a society. I simple pointed out to you then, by your standards, many (13) states had spoken. And they made it perfectly clear, and left no doubt, as to how the moral structure of society was to exists in their state.
Article VI, Bill. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Amendment 14, Bill. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What part of this is so damn hard for you to understand?
(bill) Right, what ever Steve wants to do to Ray in his own bedroom is protected, as long as Ray is cool with what Steve wants to do. Now, if Steve wants to make Ray is "legal" wedded wife well, the American people are not going to go for that.
Also, your contention that many states voted on a same sex marriage ban bill is demonstratably wrong. 13 states had it.
(bill) And if 25 had voted you think this would have changed the outcome. Oregon voted to ban it dude! Home of the great Oregonian. When Oregon votes it down that equivalents to a snowballs chance in hell with the rest of the nation.
Mostly Bible belt states and very conservative red states. (LA, MO, OK, UT, GA, KY, MS, AR, MI, MT, ND, OH, and OR)
(bill) Typical SFN game #375. If they don't like the way society dictated morality with a majority vote then they just push it aside and rationalize that most of these are red states. And anybody living in a red state is by default a born again bush bot.
Look, if all the states were red maybe I could give just a little credit to your assertion. But Oregon dude, you guys could not even get Oregon. Not to even mention Michigan, who is a very blue UAW state. They rejected the notion as well.
They passed by 70% average margins.
(bill) which means that if society dictates morals then society rejects the morality of gay marriage, overwhelmingly.
And while were at it, I'll provide something that you have not. A source for data on percentages for homosexual males can be found in the US National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS, Laumann, et al.) which pegs the percentage at 2.8%.
(bill) Far below Rosie's cry huh.... Ok, with the east and left coast I could see 3% |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 09:16:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognized this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right? Yes or no...
Sure. So what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And, as I recall, a state or two did the opposit; MA, for example. And OR has an assisted suicide law. Again, so what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And OR has an assisted suicide law.
(bill) So let me play this out if you will. In your words, "Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality" So when the people of Organ vote down same sex marriage but vote up on assisted suicide, using the "society defining morality" notion, then I can assume that the people of Oregon hold suicide as a more moral act then marrying your gay lover, right? You guys need to quit bring Oregon into this. They are one blue state who is not helping the cause.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 10:18:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
They are still beholden to the Constitution, Bill. Some states want to make Christianity the state religion. Some have even written it into their state Constitutions. They were still beholden to the 14th amendment and those provisions within their state Constitutions were invalidated.
(bill) I was told 103 times by many of the SFN crew that the consensus of society dictate what the morals shall be for said society weather an individual likes the morals or not. This is the SFN universal principle to how morality is dictated in a society. I simple pointed out to you then, by your standards, many (13) states had spoken. And they made it perfectly clear, and left no doubt, as to how the moral structure of society was to exists in their state.
But yet you completely fail to realize the difference between morality and the law. Common morality which may have provisions in the law which does not support their morality. I likewise do not accept 13 as many when compared to 50.
quote:
Article VI, Bill. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Amendment 14, Bill. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What part of this is so damn hard for you to understand?
(bill) Right, what ever Steve wants to do to Ray in his own bedroom is protected, as long as Ray is cool with what Steve wants to do. Now, if Steve wants to make Ray is "legal" wedded wife well, the American people are not going to go for that.
Whether the people in the 13 states agree with it or not. If they consider it moral or not. Whether their churches recognise it or not. None of these have any bearing on a civil contract being applied equally under the law to all adults. No one here said the majority of people in those 13 states would like it.
quote:
Also, your contention that many states voted on a same sex marriage ban bill is demonstratably wrong. 13 states had it.
(bill) And if 25 had voted you think this would have changed the outcome. Oregon voted to ban it dude! Home of the great Oregonian. When Oregon votes it down that equivalents to a snowballs chance in hell with the rest of the nation.
When did Oregon become a representative sample of the US?
quote:
Mostly Bible belt states and very conservative red states. (LA, MO, OK, UT, GA, KY, MS, AR, MI, MT, ND, OH, and OR)
(bill) Typical SFN game #375. If they don't like the way society dictated morality with a majority vote then they just push it aside and rationalize that most of these are red states. And anybody living in a red state is by default a born again bush bot.
Look, if all the states were red maybe I could give just a little credit to your assertion. But Oregon dude, you guys could not even get Oregon. Not to even mention Michigan, who is a very blue UAW state. They rejected the notion as well.
Do you ever actually look at the claim before you head straight over the top. Does the word "Mostly" somehow equate with "All"?
quote:
They passed by 70% average margins.
(bill) which means that if society dictates morals then society rejects the morality of gay marriage, overwhelmingly.
Morally, people can consider gay marriage immoral. However, the LAW does not allow laws to be applied differently based on it.
quote:
And while were at it, I'll provide something that you have not. A source for data on percentages for homosexual males can be found in the US National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS, Laumann, et al.) which pegs the percentage at 2.8%.
(bill) Far below Rosie's cry huh.... Ok, with the east and left coast I could see 3%
And Rosie's cry means what in this conversation? No one here brought up her assertion as fact. Another red herring to prop up your cadaverous premise?
Real data, Bill. Deal with it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 10:20:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognized this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right? Yes or no...
Sure. So what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And, as I recall, a state or two did the opposit; MA, for example. And OR has an assisted suicide law. Again, so what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And OR has an assisted suicide law.
(bill) So let me play this out if you will. In your words, "Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality" So when the people of Organ vote down same sex marriage but vote up on assisted suicide, using the "society defining morality" notion, then I can assume that the people of Oregon hold suicide as a more moral act then marrying your gay lover, right? You guys need to quit bring Oregon into this. They are one blue state who is not helping the cause.
Only if one equates "morality" and "law". They are not. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 11:11:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
They are still beholden to the Constitution, Bill. Some states want to make Christianity the state religion. Some have even written it into their state Constitutions. They were still beholden to the 14th amendment and those provisions within their state Constitutions were invalidated.
(bill) I was told 103 times by many of the SFN crew that the consensus of society dictate what the morals shall be for said society weather an individual likes the morals or not. This is the SFN universal principle to how morality is dictated in a society. I simple pointed out to you then, by your standards, many (13) states had spoken. And they made it perfectly clear, and left no doubt, as to how the moral structure of society was to exists in their state.
But yet you completely fail to realize the difference between morality and the law. Common morality which may have provisions in the law which does not support their morality. I likewise do not accept 13 as many when compared to 50.
quote:
Article VI, Bill. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Amendment 14, Bill. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What part of this is so damn hard for you to understand?
(bill) Right, what ever Steve wants to do to Ray in his own bedroom is protected, as long as Ray is cool with what Steve wants to do. Now, if Steve wants to make Ray is "legal" wedded wife well, the American people are not going to go for that.
Whether the people in the 13 states agree with it or not. If they consider it moral or not. Whether their churches recognise it or not. None of these have any bearing on a civil contract being applied equally under the law to all adults. No one here said the majority of people in those 13 states would like it.
quote:
Also, your contention that many states voted on a same sex marriage ban bill is demonstratably wrong. 13 states had it.
(bill) And if 25 had voted you think this would have changed the outcome. Oregon voted to ban it dude! Home of the great Oregonian. When Oregon votes it down that equivalents to a snowballs chance in hell with the rest of the nation.
When did Oregon become a representative sample of the US?
quote:
Mostly Bible belt states and very conservative red states. (LA, MO, OK, UT, GA, KY, MS, AR, MI, MT, ND, OH, and OR)
(bill) Typical SFN game #375. If they don't like the way society dictated morality with a majority vote then they just push it aside and rationalize that most of these are red states. And anybody living in a red state is by default a born again bush bot.
Look, if all the states were red maybe I could give just a little credit to your assertion. But Oregon dude, you guys could not even get Oregon. Not to even mention Michigan, who is a very blue UAW state. They rejected the notion as well.
Do you ever actually look at the claim before you head straight over the top. Does the word "Mostly" somehow equate with "All"?
quote:
They passed by 70% average margins.
(bill) which means that if society dictates morals then society rejects the morality of gay marriage, overwhelmingly.
Morally, people can consider gay marriage immoral. However, the LAW does not allow laws to be applied differently based on it.
quote:
And while were at it, I'll provide something that you have not. A source for data on percentages for homosexual males can be found in the US National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS, Laumann, et al.) which pegs the percentage at 2.8%.
(bill) Far below Rosie's cry huh.... Ok, with the east and left coast I could see 3%
And Rosie's cry means what in this conversation? No one here brought up her assertion as fact. Another red herring to prop up your cadaverous premise?
Real data, Bill. Deal with it.
But yet you completely fail to realize the difference between morality and the law. Common morality which may have provisions in the law which does not support their morality. I likewise do not accept 13 as many when compared to 50.
(bill) Who cares what you accept. The folks in Oregon were not worried about you when they voted. And they were not voting on defining marriage for the whole country but rather their state.
Whether the people in the 13 states agree with it or not. If they consider it moral or not. Whether their churches recognize it or not. None of these have any bearing on a civil contract being applied equally under the law to all adults. No one here said the majority of people in those 13 states would like it.
(bill) Neither will the rest of the 37 states like it. I can't wait to see the activist judges who try to ram this down the throat of a state that voted well above the 70% average. It is not going to happen. The politicians look at the polls and they know if they force this on the American people they will be out of office so fast it will make their head spin. Now if Steve and Ray want to do the YMCA in their own private dwelling the general American public has come to the realization that with the ACLU and PC flying amuck that they can not dictate what goes on behind closed doors. But when it comes to changing the moral structure of our society which has been in place for 200+ years they draw the line and they draw it bold.
When did Oregon become a representative sample of the US?
(bill) Never. But it is one of the bluest states in the union. I don't see ANY red states voting for same sex marriage. That leaves the blues up for grabs. My point about Oregon was that they make Berkley look conservative. So, if you can not even get Oregon to pass same sex marriage you might as well just stop now and quite wasting your ti |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 11:44:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognized this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right? Yes or no...
Sure. So what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And, as I recall, a state or two did the opposit; MA, for example. And OR has an assisted suicide law. Again, so what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And OR has an assisted suicide law.
(bill) So let me play this out if you will. In your words, "Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality" So when the people of Organ vote down same sex marriage but vote up on assisted suicide, using the "society defining morality" notion, then I can assume that the people of Oregon hold suicide as a more moral act then marrying your gay lover, right? You guys need to quit bring Oregon into this. They are one blue state who is not helping the cause.
Only if one equates "morality" and "law". They are not.
Only if one equates "morality" and "law". They are not.
(bill) For the sake of time I will grant you your assertion and restate:
If the voters of Oregon voted to make same sex marriage illegal and suicide legal then suicide to Oregonians is an acceptable practice and lawful behavior while marrying your gay lover is a criminal offense. Yes?.... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 11:55:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
More noise from the festering hate-hole of Bill[/b]:
But when you start trying to change the basic structure of our society for the last 200 years plus, which was one man and one women who raise up children then the American public draws the line.
Lets see some evidence to support the claim that marriage of "one man one woman" has been the defacto standard of marriage at ANY time in the history of the world.
Lets see some evidence that this construct has been, as you put it, "the basic structure of our society" at any time in the last 200 years.
As somebody famous once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
Put up or shut up Bill[/b].
Sadly, I predict you will do neither. Instead you will go off on another rant about the evil fags and their agenda to destroy the country.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:13:27 [Permalink]
|
Bill changes the topic from debating whether morality is absolute or relative, to whether American society is for or against homosexuality being considered moral:
Bill wrote over and over again: So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognized this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right?
Filthy had a good response to this. And I'll give another: Yes, that vote indicated that the majority of the around 50% of Americans who bothered voting and can legally vote are morally opposed to homosexuality. And how does that dictate that I as an individual cannot disagree with that majority and try to change their minds? Oh, it doesn't. So we have no problem there.
The majority being in favor or against something hardly shows that thing is an absolute moral law (it can't since society changes all the time), so why are you bringing it up?
[b]Bill[b/] wrote: I was told 103 times by many of the SFN crew that the consensus of society dictate what the morals shall be for said society weather an individual likes the morals or not. I was told 103 times by many of the SFN crew that the consensus of society dictate what the morals shall be for said society weather an individual likes the morals or not.
Yes, that is true. If the majority of Americans continue being bigots against homosexuals then indeed, gay marriage will not become legal. But the tide can also change which is why people like me try to persuade the majority otherwise. Again, how does this prove your claim about morality being absolute? You have only identified what one majority of people are in favor of.
So the general public stomached all the gay pride parades with S&M dudes running around tossing rubbers into the crowd.
First of all, not all of the public stomached it. Many outright protested. Many others who hadn't really thought about the issue before were moved by it to SUPPORT gay rights.
Second, the S&M dudes have far and away been a tiny minority in the gay rights movement. They get a lot of media attention because the media is more interested in readers/watchers than portraying an accurate picture of the gay community. And looks like you fell for that skewed portrayal.
But when you start trying to change the basic structure of our society for the last 200 years plus, which was one man and one women who raise up children then the American public draws the line. And it was drawn in bold with a super majority.
We have changed all sorts of traditional social norms. Tradition alone is never a good reason. IF it were you could argue that legalizing interracial marriage was a mistake.
You are talking about the majority of the American people as if they are right in the objective sense. At the same time you talk about how screwed up the morals today are. Which is it?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:16:48 [Permalink]
|
Getting back to the topic of this discussion... Bill, again I ask you how do you discover this supposedly absolute moral system? How can you know that homosexuality is wrong, rather than it just being your personal opinion? You keep bringing up stuff that isn't directly caused by homosexuality, like AIDS but AIDS is the cause of the more specific behavior of unprotected sex, not homosexuality.
C'mon Bill, tell me how you know it is absolutely wrong for lesbians to engage in sexual acts or gay men to engage in sexual acts that are safe and within the context of a monogamous relationship? C'mon, Bill how can we humans possible decipher this supposedly absolute moral system? How? How?
YOU are the one making the claim Bill. You say we can know that morals are absolute. So tell us how these absolute rules are so obvious to everyone. Tell us some horrible consequence that ALWAYS befalls people who engage in gay sex. Remember this consequences must ALWAYS befall EVERY SINGLE PERSON who engages in gay sex, or else it cannot be proof of being an absolute consequence.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:18:40 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: Yes, they could have. There is a very simple test. Some call it the "golden rule". It has been around for a very very long time.
Its a damn shame that most people don't live by it.
Oh, how hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Valiant already voiced my objection to this response, but I'll still provide another. Dude, do you realize that you are pushing the golden rule as an objective moral standard? I agree with you that it is a shame that most people don't live by it, but the desire to follow it is emotional, not rational. There certainly were Nazis if not all of them who genuinely believed that Jews (and blacks, and gays, etc) were inherently corrupt, and they thought they had good evidence for that belief, and that thus the world would be better off without them. Just like there have been many people (both men and women) in the past (and sadly, the present) who genuinely believed, and thought they had good evidence, that men were naturally more intelligent than women, or that whites were naturally more intelligent than blacks. Are you claiming that all those racists and sexists could have known better even given their own time and social context? If so, how?
I'm not saying there is no irrational behavior. Like I said, if it contradicts with one's own worldview, it is irrational. But it can contradict with someone else's (like your) worldview and still be rational.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:28:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognized this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right? Yes or no...
Sure. So what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And, as I recall, a state or two did the opposit; MA, for example. And OR has an assisted suicide law. Again, so what?
And yet again, you make my point for me. Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality. And OR has an assisted suicide law.
(bill) So let me play this out if you will. In your words, "Society, not the individual but the collective, is defining morality" So when the people of Organ vote down same sex marriage but vote up on assisted suicide, using the "society defining morality" notion, then I can assume that the people of Oregon hold suicide as a more moral act then marrying your gay lover, right? You guys need to quit bring Oregon into this. They are one blue state who is not helping the cause.
Only if one equates "morality" and "law". They are not.
Only if one equates "morality" and "law". They are not.
(bill) For the sake of time I will grant you your assertion and restate:
If the voters of Oregon voted to make same sex marriage illegal and suicide legal then suicide to Oregonians is an acceptable practice and lawful behavior while marrying your gay lover is a criminal offense. Yes?....
If so, they would still have to make their law conform to the Constitution. It does not as assisted suicide is available to all adults equally and marriage is not. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 12:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
But yet you completely fail to realize the difference between morality and the law. Common morality which may have provisions in the law which does not support their morality. I likewise do not accept 13 as many when compared to 50.
(bill) Who cares what you accept. The folks in Oregon were not worried about you when they voted. And they were not voting on defining marriage for the whole country but rather their state.
Do you even read what you write?
1) I was disagreeing with YOU of what consists of many, not Oregonians
2) The rule of law and the primacy of the Constitution must be obeyed
3) The People can pass any damn law they want to, if it directly conflicts with the US Constitution, it is thrown out
quote:
Whether the people in the 13 states agree with it or not. If they consider it moral or not. Whether their churches recognize it or not. None of these have any bearing on a civil contract being applied equally under the law to all adults. No one here said the majority of people in those 13 states would like it.
(bill) Neither will the rest of the 37 states like it. I can't wait to see the activist judges who try to ram this down the throat of a state that voted well above the 70% average. It is not going to happen. The politicians look at the polls and they know if they force this on the American people they will be out of office so fast it will make their head spin. Now if Steve and Ray want to do the YMCA in their own private dwelling the general American public has come to the realization that with the ACLU and PC flying amuck that they can not dictate what goes on behind closed doors. But when it comes to changing the moral structure of our society which has been in place for 200+ years they draw the line and they draw it bold.
If by "activist judges" you means the ones who apply the law per the Constitution and it goes against your conviction, then yes, people will be pissed off. The politicians don't have to force anything on the people and, given poll numbers from the Pew Research group, a supermajority (2/3rds) support contracts either called marriages or granting rights and duties in civil partnerships to same sex couples. Also, assuming that the other 37 states will agree with the 13 is baseless. Except we are talking about changing law, not morals. Governments have been notorious for failing miserably when they tried to convince the society to change their morals. Again, you continually confuse the LAW with MORALS.
quote:
When did Oregon become a representative sample of the US?
(bill) Never. But it is one of the bluest states in the union. I don't see ANY red states voting for same sex marriage. That leaves the blues up for grabs. My point about Oregon was that they make Berkley look conservative. So, if you can not even get Oregon to pass same sex marriage you might as well just stop now and quite wasting your time. Then to have Michigan reject same sex marriage as well was just a slap in the face to the same sex cause.
I see, so it was a red herring and meaningless.
quote:
Do you ever actually look at the claim before you head straight over the top. Does the word "Mostly" somehow equate with "All"?
(bill) Oh stop your whining. You want to battle with me over the words "most", "many" and "all". Smoke and mirrors.
Here are the facts... jack. 13 states voted on same sex marriage. 13 states rejected same sex marriage, overwhelmingly. These states were not voting for the nation but rather their own state. As soon as the rest of the states vote you will see the same. They can not even get Oregon to join up.
Real data Vali, deal with it.
When you use the terms inconsistent with common usage, calling you on it isn't whining.
As for real data, you have produced none of substance other than the 13 states went against "gay marriage". Since no lesser "same sex partnership" legislation was proposed, your point goes along with the Pew Research which indicated that 1/3rd of the people didn't want any sort of partnership. 1/3rd of the people thought the partnerships were ok but didn't want it called marriage. And the final 1/3rd didn't have a problem with it being called marriage.
quote:
Morally, people can consider gay marriage immoral. However, the LAW does not allow laws to be applied differently based on it.
(bill) If "society dictates morals" and Oregon voters reject gay marriage, but except suicide, then using the "society dictates morals" logic we can assume that the people of Oregon feel suicide is more moral of an act then marrying a gay lover in their state, correct?
That is currently correct by means of morality. By means of the law, it is not. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9697 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women...
Bill, I just wanted to inform you than the words "one" and "women" are mutually exclusive in conjuction. Please, for our benefit please consider running your texts through MS Word spell and grammar-check before posting.
Actually, the idea of marriage between one man and women is actually funny. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9697 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:14:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So in Nov. 2004 when many states overwhelmingly voted down the same sex marriage and voted for the definition of marriage as one man one women you recognised this as the moral standard being confirmed by the social structure for what they want their society to be structured like in their state, right?
I refuse to accept your description "overwhelmingly voted down..." until you post proper references that backs your claim.
I will also remind the audience that about half of the US people didn't bother to haul their asses to the voting booth in the first place, and in absence of any survey we can't (and won't) accept an assumption that they would vote similarly.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:34:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox wrote:
Oh, how hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Valiant already voiced my objection to this response, but I'll still provide another. Dude, do you realize that you are pushing the golden rule as an objective moral standard?
You fail to comprehend.
The standard of the golden rule itself is an objective measure, yes. The ground upon which it rests, however, is not. What people would accept being done to themselves by others changes.
There may, indeed, have been a time when people would have wanted invading armies to cast their infants from the city walls when they were defeated, but I am unaware of any. I am also unaware of any society that would have accepted genocide at the hands of another as acceptable treatment. And so on and so on. The standards for what compromises acceptable behavior (that you would accept being done to you) does indeed change from society to society and has greatly changed over time.
quote:
I agree with you that it is a shame that most people don't live by it, but the desire to follow it is emotional, not rational.
Nonsense. It is perfectly rational to treat others how you would expect to be treated if your position were reversed.
quote:
There certainly were Nazis if not all of them who genuinely believed that Jews (and blacks, and gays, etc) were inherently corrupt, and they thought they had good evidence for that belief, and that thus the world would be better off without them. Just like there have been many people (both men and women) in the past (and sadly, the present) who genuinely believed, and thought they had good evidence, that men were naturally more intelligent than women, or that whites were naturally more intelligent than blacks.
So what? None of that is even remotely relevent to a reasoned application of the golden rule.
quote:
Are you claiming that all those racists and sexists could have known better even given their own time and social context? If so, how?
With regard to how they treated people? Yes. How- By asking themselves if they would be ok with recieving the same treatment if their positions were reversed.
quote:
I'm not saying there is no irrational behavior. Like I said, if it contradicts with one's own worldview, it is irrational. But it can contradict with someone else's (like your) worldview and still be rational.
As I pointed out to Bill earlier, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Some things are irrational, regardless of what your "world view" says about them. Reality is objective and not subject to change just because of a person's "beliefs".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
