|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:48:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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?
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) Oh don't you start whining to.
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 vo |
"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.-
|
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:51:27 [Permalink]
|
I disagree, rationality is a matter of perspective.
From the perspective of the siberian tiger would not the extermination of all humans be rational? While from any humans point of view that would be irrational.
I always try to have the aliens from another planet view, to them (say the Independence Day aliens) the extermination was perfectly rational. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 13:55:09 [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 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.
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.
(bill) Not true at all, it is offered to all adults eqully. They just choose by their own free will to reject the terms of marriage set forth by the state and the voters. So it is a red haring that their rights are not protected, because they are. So in the end we see that they are not denied marriage. They just reject the definetion of marriage and since they refuse to comply they dismiss themselves from the equation rather then the other way around. |
"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 : 14:16:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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 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.
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.
(bill) Not true at all, it is offered to all adults eqully. They just choose by their own free will to reject the terms of marriage set forth by the state and the voters. So it is a red haring that their rights are not protected, because they are. So in the end we see that they are not denied marriage. They just reject the definetion of marriage and since they refuse to comply they dismiss themselves from the equation rather then the other way around.
That is a bald faced lie. The civil contract of marriage conveys upon it's parties no fewer than 1,138 seperate benefits which are not available to same sex partners. I also note that the same arguments were also forwarded (and rejected) for interracial marriage bans.
Source: http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04353r.txt
The law is not applied equally, therefore it runs afoul of the 14th amendment. Since the definition does not treat all contractual pairbondings equally and as is evidenced by the 1,138 benefits that married couples have that same sex couples are forbidden to get, it clearly does not allow equal protection under the law.
By all means, rationalize away the text in the 14th Amendment and Article VI. This should be worth a laugh. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/08/2006 14:18:33 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 14:52:52 [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 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.
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.
(bill) Not true at all, it is offered to all adults eqully. They just choose by their own free will to reject the terms of marriage set forth by the state and the voters. So it is a red haring that their rights are not protected, because they are. So in the end we see that they are not denied marriage. They just reject the definetion of marriage and since they refuse to comply they dismiss themselves from the equation rather then the other way around.
That is a bald faced lie. The civil contract of marriage conveys upon it's parties no fewer than 1,138 seperate benefits which are not available to same sex partners. I also note that the same arguments were also forwarded (and rejected) for interracial marriage bans.
Source: http://www.gao.gov/atext/d04353r.txt
The law is not applied equally, therefore it runs afoul of the 14th amendment. Since the definition does not treat all contractual pairbondings equally and as is evidenced by the 1,138 benefits that married couples have that same sex couples are forbidden to get, it clearly does not allow equal protection under the law.
By all means, rationalize away the text in the 14th Amendment and Article VI. This should be worth a laugh.
All adults have the right to get married. The excepted definition of marriage has always been between a man and a women, and the states one by one will confirm this. The gays don't except the definition of marriage so they dismiss themselves, not the other way around. If they want to get married they can get married. They just have follow the definition of marriage which is man and a women. They refuse to abide by the legal definition so they dismiss themselves from the equation. If I go to the dept of motor vehicles to get a permit the state will ask me to take a test. It is required to get a permit. If I refuse to follow the states requirements then the state will not give me a driver permit. The state has not denied me a driver permit. I lost my right to get a drivers permit because I refused to comply. No adult is denied marriage unless they refuses what is required in marriage. Right now the state and the public say that it is a man and a women. So the gays are denied nothing they just refuses to comply to the definition of marriage. They seek to redefine the institution of marriage not join it. If they choose to join it they must comply to the definition of marriage. |
"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 : 15:19:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
All adults have the right to get married. The excepted definition of marriage has always been between a man and a women, and the states one by one will confirm this. The gays don't except the definition of marriage so they dismiss themselves, not the other way around. If they want to get married they can get married. They just have follow the definition of marriage which is man and a women. They refuse to abide by the legal definition so they dismiss themselves from the equation. If I go to the dept of motor vehicles to get a permit the state will ask me to take a test. It is required to get a permit. If I refuse to follow the states requirements then the state will not give me a driver permit. The state has not denied me a driver permit. I lost my right to get a drivers permit because I refused to comply. No adult is denied marriage unless they refuses what is required in marriage. Right now the state and the public say that it is a man and a women. So the gays are denied nothing they just refuses to comply to the definition of marriage. They seek to redefine the institution of marriage not join it. If they choose to join it they must comply to the definition of marriage.
Yup. It was funny.
Again, you have ignored very important points in order to focus on flawed premises and made false analogies.
1) The definition of marriage is not fixed in all aspects. Again, interracial marriages were forbidden by law in several states. These were overturned due to 14th Amendment problems. Same sex marriage is no different.
2) Driving is a priveledge, not a right. Marriage is a civil contract which is enforcable by law. To deny it to same sex couples violates their equal protection as there are no fewer than 1,138 seperate benefits to marriage which are unobtainable by same sex couples.
3) Right now popular opinion defines marriage between a man and a woman. That is morality. The state has laws enacted which are not as specific (read them, Bill. They aren't.), but have consistantly been applied to different sex couples and denied to same sex couples. Therein lies your 14th Amendment problem which you still have not justified.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 16:15:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(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.
*yawn* Another straw man / non-sequtier. Again, so what?
Wheels within wheels, Bill; societies within societies. All with their own version of morals. Fortunatly, most of the more frantic ones are kept under control by the law, state and fed, and the Constitution. Think about it.
Are you worried that a gay couple might move in next door to you? Is that what all this raving's about? They wouldn't necessarly have to be married, you know. They could just be living in sin.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 16:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
filthy said:
Are you worried that a gay couple might move in next door to you? Is that what all this raving's about? They wouldn't necessarly have to be married, you know. They could just be living in sin.
Don't forget that they will be "pushing" their agenda and trying to "recruit" Bill, and his children, if they live next to him.
That is the root of Bill's bigoted mindset. He fears that his new homosexual neighbor will be able to recruit him. Bill, that is your own repressed homosexuality speaking. You can't be recruited man, you are or are not homosexual (yes, ignoring the shades between for brevity's sake).
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 17:32:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I've had a sneaking urge to do an haiku for days....
In any discourse,
Always know whereof you speak.
Alas, he does not.
There. I feel much better, now....... 
(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...
No, for several reasons:
- I do not respect any law that tries to shape my moral sensibilites. I may abide by it if the penalties for breaking it are excessivly harsh, but I do not respect it.
- In Texas, at least, the amendment (according to my interpretation -- consult a lawyer if wou want something that is not probably laughably inaccurate) basically defined the term "marriage" in the first section of the amendment, stating that nothing similar or equal to "marriage" shall be defined or recognized by any jurisdiction in the state, and then in the second section says that you can enter into contract to create roughly the same set of rights and obligations you would get in marriage anyways (but you can't call it marriage). The resolution is a bit self-contradictory that way, and seems to have been constructed more for the sounds and fury rather than to actually alter rights. See http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=JR&BILLSUFFIX=00006&VERSION=5&TYPE=B for more info, and feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
- I personally don't care who gets hitched to whom (or what), in any combination or number, provided all parties can give informed consent to the terms of said hitching.
- I do not think it is meaningful to interpret the moral standards of a society in any sense other than a statistical one. (edited to clarify point)
|
Insert witty saying here. |
| Edited by - nescafe on 02/08/2006 17:44:28 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 20:52:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I've had a sneaking urge to do an haiku for days....
In any discourse,
Always know whereof you speak.
Alas, he does not.
There. I feel much better, now.......
(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...
No, for several reasons:
- I do not respect any law that tries to shape my moral sensibilites. I may abide by it if the penalties for breaking it are excessivly harsh, but I do not respect it.
- In Texas, at least, the amendment (according to my interpretation -- consult a lawyer if wou want something that is not probably laughably inaccurate) basically defined the term "marriage" in the first section of the amendment, stating that nothing similar or equal to "marriage" shall be defined or recognized by any jurisdiction in the state, and then in the second section says that you can enter into contract to create roughly the same set of rights and obligations you would get in marriage anyways (but you can't call it marriage). The resolution is a bit self-contradictory that way, and seems to have been constructed more for the sounds and fury rather than to actually alter rights. See http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=JR&BILLSUFFIX=00006&VERSION=5&TYPE=B for more info, and feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
We had a discussion about that very law here a while ago. It not only makes domestic partnerships in which the same benefits and duties are transferred, but it also effectively opts out of reciprocation between states so that they will not have to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:12:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
We had a discussion about that very law here a while ago. It not only makes domestic partnerships in which the same benefits and duties are transferred, but it also effectively opts out of reciprocation between states so that they will not have to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state.
pointer to thread? |
Insert witty saying here. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 21:44:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
All adults have the right to get married. The excepted definition of marriage has always been between a man and a women, and the states one by one will confirm this. The gays don't except the definition of marriage so they dismiss themselves, not the other way around. If they want to get married they can get married. They just have follow the definition of marriage which is man and a women. They refuse to abide by the legal definition so they dismiss themselves from the equation. If I go to the dept of motor vehicles to get a permit the state will ask me to take a test. It is required to get a permit. If I refuse to follow the states requirements then the state will not give me a driver permit. The state has not denied me a driver permit. I lost my right to get a drivers permit because I refused to comply. No adult is denied marriage unless they refuses what is required in marriage. Right now the state and the public say that it is a man and a women. So the gays are denied nothing they just refuses to comply to the definition of marriage. They seek to redefine the institution of marriage not join it. If they choose to join it they must comply to the definition of marriage.
Yup. It was funny.
Again, you have ignored very important points in order to focus on flawed premises and made false analogies.
1) The definition of marriage is not fixed in all aspects. Again, interracial marriages were forbidden by law in several states. These were overturned due to 14th Amendment problems. Same sex marriage is no different.
2) Driving is a priveledge, not a right. Marriage is a civil contract which is enforcable by law. To deny it to same sex couples violates their equal protection as there are no fewer than 1,138 seperate benefits to marriage which are unobtainable by same sex couples.
3) Right now popular opinion defines marriage between a man and a woman. That is morality. The state has laws enacted which are not as specific (read them, Bill. They aren't.), but have consistantly been applied to different sex couples and denied to same sex couples. Therein lies your 14th Amendment problem which you still have not justified.
Marriage has been interpreted as man and women from the founding of this nation and has been interpreted as such ever since. It is the basis for our society. Because of leftist judges who were trying to reinterpret the definition of a marriage and make same sex marriage legal, In 1996 the house and senate overwhelmingly passed the DOMA and then Bill Clinton signed it into law.
• First, it allows each state to deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.
• Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Congressional proponents assert authority to enact the law under the FFC of the United States Constitution with the purpose to normalize heterossexual marriage on a federal level and permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize "same sex union" if other states did recognize same-sex unions. Forty states have enacted laws denying the recognition of same-sex marriages, which is more than the needed number of states required to amend the United States Constitution. Six states currently have established laws recognizing some form of same-sex un |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:23:26 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Oregon voted against it! That should pop up serious red flags for the cause. If you can't get Oregon to pass it your doomed!
Bill, are you trying to convince me that gay rights is a lost cause, or are you trying to convince me that morality is absolute? I have many good reasons to believe that gay rights are a battle that can be eventually won in America – like, say, hopefully in my lifetime. I have no delusions that it can happen overnight or even over the course of a couple years. But since gay rights and general acceptance in America has been steadily climbing over the past few decades, it is completely reasonable for me to believe and hope and fight for that.
However, that is neither here nor there with regards to relative vs. absolute morality.
iI wasn't trying prove anything about an absolute. I just applied the SFN terms to how morals are produced and asked if they would then acknowledge that the 13 states who got to vote had declared same sex marriage immoral and/or illegal. It took a few post for them to admit this but they did.
You weren't trying to prove anything about an absolute!? But that is what this discussion was supposed to be about. So you just wanted to see if you could get skeptics to squirm a little in annoyance at the fact that our society doesn't support a moral value that we support? That's rather smarmy of you.
I don't agree that suicide is moral but if I lived in Oregon I would just be a part of the minority who objected to the majority who established the morals on suicide using the "society dictates morals" card.
Yes, you would. Just like I am just a part of the minority who thinks gay should be able to get married. Again, what does that have to do with morals being relative or absolute? Are you trying to say that relative morality isn't nice, and therefore cannot be true?
I've heard people argue against relative morality by saying stuff like “Well what if the Nazis won and killed everyone who disagreed with them? Then the only morality in the world would be Nazi morality, right?” And then I have to say “Well, yes, that is true.” And of course the idea of Nazi morality being just as valid from an objective point of view is distasteful, so it makes it look like the absolute moralist won the argument. Likewise I once debated with a campus preacher who said “If two men and a woman are stranded on a desert island and the two men decide it is OK to rape the woman, then does that make it right since they are the majority?” To which I am forced to reply: “From an absolute perspective, no one is right or wrong. From the two men's point of view, they are right. To the woman, they are wrong.” And it is distasteful too to think that two rapists on a desert island would not be punished for such a violent act. But nobody ever said reality had to be pretty.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/08/2006 22:28:13 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: I don't think the general public has a problem with interracial marriage...
You are going to make me tear my hair out, aren't you? I did not say that the general public of TODAY had a problem with interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was once illegal in America. It once didn't have enough public support to even be legal. That did change as racism slowly lessened in America. So, yes, the general public does not have a problem with interracial marriage anymore. My whole point (which you totally missed) was that SOMETHING BEING TRADITIONAL IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON BY ITSELF TO KEEP IT AROUND. In Korea they have a tradition - that is much older than 200 years - of torturing dogs to death and then eating them in order to protect men from impotence. Should they keep doing it today even though science has shown it doesn't work and it is cruel to animals? After all, it is a longstanding tradition.
See, tradition alone is not a good reason for anything.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:44:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill wrote:
I don't think
Obviously.
|
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
