|
On November 25 2012 15:02 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:54 Reason wrote: Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs. I'm not, that's pretty much one of the few things that's consistent in the bible. What I'm trying to convey that going by the bible is illogical since it's inconsistent as a whole. One should use reason, not simply quoting written word and live by it.
You believe your opinions are more important formed using logic and reason.
..other people believe faith is more important.
It's your opinion versus theirs.
I repeat : Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
I've used logic and reason to form my opinions too, and if that's the only level you are willing to debate on, fine. Debate the points instead of trying to undermine the source of his beliefs.
On November 25 2012 15:18 Shival wrote: I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
???? Homosexual marriage is outside the law in Uganda, thus the whole topic.
Think of the futility of such statements before you post them with such finality
|
On November 25 2012 15:18 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 15:06 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:59 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:34 Reason wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid? Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point. One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference. On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right. Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality. It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it. One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical. And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized. My belief is that marriage is entirely a human invention anyway. Can't we just say that it's simply two persons, animals or object living together? Therefore there is no inconsistency, I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible. As for the subject of objective morality, I'm ok with going into that discussion in PM if you want, because it would require nearly a complete paper to prove and would go too far off-topic if you ask me. (We're already very close to going off-topic.) However, I'm not sure if there's any value in it for me to do so, as it's pretty much impossible to reason with a religious person about objective morality. (no offence intended)
In that same first paragraph, you say that you would recognize all those different types of marriages, if not for their being a lack of consent, and therefore "out of the law". But who cares about the law? We can change the law. Again, at least on principle, they should be allowed.
Feel free to PM me, or not, if you feel I won't be open to your side (no offense taken, but you may be surprised ) Thanks for the discussion, in any event.
|
On November 25 2012 15:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 15:02 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:54 Reason wrote: Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs. I'm not, that's pretty much one of the few things that's consistent in the bible. What I'm trying to convey that going by the bible is illogical since it's inconsistent as a whole. One should use reason, not simply quoting written word and live by it. You believe your opinions are more important formed using logic and reason. ..other people believe faith is more important. It's your opinion versus theirs. I repeat : Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point. I've used logic and reason to form my opinions too, and if that's the only level you are willing to debate on, fine. Debate the points instead of trying to undermine the source of his beliefs.
Ok then, let me give you an example. I can reason with logic that it's fine to work on sunday because it's just a man made day without any relevance to what we can do on it. It's entirely a man made construct.
That opinion can be argued for and against, thus we can eventually come to an agreement. (expected eventual value)
One can belief one shouldn't work on sunday, but that opinion doesn't hold any substance other than his belief.
That opinion cannot be argued for or against, because in and of itself it has no substance provided. A belief is also impossible to come to terms with if there's two conflicting. (no expected eventual value)
|
On November 25 2012 15:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 15:18 Shival wrote: I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
???? Homosexual marriage is outside the law in Uganda, thus the whole topic. Think of the futility of such statements before you post them with such finality
Indeed, maybe you should read it a bit better before you post thinking you got me.
"Illegal for various reasons". Homosexuality... is illigal why?
On November 25 2012 15:26 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 15:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 15:06 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:59 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:34 Reason wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid? Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point. One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference. On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right. Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality. It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it. One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical. And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized. My belief is that marriage is entirely a human invention anyway. Can't we just say that it's simply two persons, animals or object living together? Therefore there is no inconsistency, I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible. As for the subject of objective morality, I'm ok with going into that discussion in PM if you want, because it would require nearly a complete paper to prove and would go too far off-topic if you ask me. (We're already very close to going off-topic.) However, I'm not sure if there's any value in it for me to do so, as it's pretty much impossible to reason with a religious person about objective morality. (no offence intended) In that same first paragraph, you say that you would recognize all those different types of marriages, if not for their being a lack of consent, and therefore "out of the law". But who cares about the law? We can change the law. Again, at least on principle, they should be allowed. Feel free to PM me, or not, if you feel I won't be open to your side (no offense taken, but you may be surprised ) Thanks for the discussion, in any event.
Are you suggesting changing the law to acknowledge marriage between non-consenting partners? In fact, change the law to accept any form of non-consenting partnership, irregardless of whether it should be called marriage?
edit: I may PM you some time later today, kind of busy at the moment to take the time for it though. Glad we can have a civilized discussion anyway.
|
Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts.
The important points made by soon.Cloak were not his own subjective opinions against that of gay marriage, soundly or unsoundly based on faith as they may or may not be. In his effort to be open, honest and discuss the topic fully the discussion has been derailed into essentially science vs religion. I implore you to forget this and move on, as we both know and I have attempted to express specifically and repeatedly this will accomplish nothing.
The important points were those based in the language you and I both communicate in, logic and reason. They involved homosexuality, bestiality, incest, polygamy etc and the justification for their discussion and the plea for consistency has been made clearly.
I am going to bed now but look forward to hearing your opinions on these matters if you wish to express them.
edit: ... and are capable of coming up with something better than this "Indeed, maybe you should read it a bit better before you post thinking you got me." ... sigh.
|
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts.
The important points made by soon.Cloak were not his own subjective opinions against that of gay marriage, soundly or unsoundly based on faith as they may or may not be. In his effort to be open, honest and discuss the topic fully the discussion has been derailed into essentially science vs religion. I implore you to forget this and move on, as we both know and I have attempted to express specifically and repeatedly this will accomplish nothing.
The important points were those based in the language you and I both communicate in, logic and reason. They involved homosexuality, bestiality, incest, polygamy etc and the justification for their discussion and the plea for consistency has been made clearly.
I am going to bed now but look forward to hearing your opinions on these matters if you wish to express them.
edit: ... and are capable of coming up with something better than this "Indeed, maybe you should read it a bit better before you post thinking you got me." ... sigh.
As for the bolded part, I'm sorry if I offended you, however I really felt you didn't read correctly what I meant while saying I'm apperantly not thinking it through ("think of futility, yadda yadda").
As for the rest of the post, I agree that we may have went too much off-topic here. However what I tried to point out, is that there is no valid reason to discuss an opinion based on fate, it has no substance to discuss about and thus is of no eventual expected value. I may have gone too far in trying to explain that position, but meh, can hardly stay silent if someone is trying to refute it.
Have a good night, sleep tight.
|
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective. Why are you mixing marriage here. Topic is prosecution of homosexuality itself. Once more, this topic IS NOT about marriage equality.
EDIT: I see that your point is not really that tied to only marriage issue. So ignore this post, my response to the relativity nonsense is in other posts.
|
On November 25 2012 12:15 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 11:02 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:32 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote: [quote]
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts. Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality. As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe. And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense). In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved. As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical. Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games. Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given. If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games. Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it. Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one? And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law. Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing. Let's see you prove that. Why would I prove anything or did you miss the part where we are talking about real world and not some formal construct. No proofs exist in real world, only evidence.
|
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
Just a quick question for my studies, would you mind informing me of your highest completed education level, salary range, socioeconomic status of birth, and geographic location?
Thanks!
|
On November 25 2012 12:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 12:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 12:03 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:48 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote: [quote] I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant. You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid? Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality. And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you. No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue. You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that? My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread. I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement? And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda. Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up. Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts... "Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this. So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct? I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
|
While I think this is utterly wrong and stuff I must say I don't see africa changing in the near millenium, so may I ask can't gays just pretend they aren't gay outside their homes ? or will they be hunted even in their homes ?
edit: nvm third news explain it all ...
|
On November 25 2012 15:06 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 14:59 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:34 Reason wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid? Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective. *That* is the point. One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference. On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote:Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong. Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent. On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. You've missed the point completely. The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so" What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this" That's the point. Is your position more valid than his? Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid? On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours. Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions. The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods. True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right. Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality. It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it. One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical. And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized. Proof is completely unnecessary, evidence is completely enough. There is enough evidence that most of morality has common and shared roots. Differences are superficial.
|
On November 28 2012 04:28 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 12:15 shadymmj wrote:On November 25 2012 11:02 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:32 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote:On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic. I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.) Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense). In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved. As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical. Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games. Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given. If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games. Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it. Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one? And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law. Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing. Let's see you prove that. Why would I prove anything or did you miss the part where we are talking about real world and not some formal construct. No proofs exist in real world, only evidence. You said "of course" like "of course Earth is not the only object in the universe" when actually it's more like saying "of course Pink is the greatest musician of all time".
You are not stating fact, it's not "of course". You are just stating your own opinions as fact, and that is an error on your part.
|
On November 28 2012 05:05 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 04:28 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 12:15 shadymmj wrote:On November 25 2012 11:02 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 10:32 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 09:52 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 09:43 Jormundr wrote:On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 08:42 SkysLa wrote: [quote]
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans. Incest is between humans... But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. . Edit: On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote: [quote]
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality. Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable. Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow. As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard. Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest. Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that) The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality. Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical. Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games. Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given. If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games. Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it. Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one? And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law. Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing. Let's see you prove that. Why would I prove anything or did you miss the part where we are talking about real world and not some formal construct. No proofs exist in real world, only evidence. You said "of course" like "of course Earth is not the only object in the universe" when actually it's more like saying "of course Pink is the greatest musician of all time". You are not stating fact, it's not "of course". You are just stating your own opinions as fact, and that is an error on your part. No, I am saying something like : orbit of Earth is elliptical. Or closer, introducing minimum wage does not always raise unemployment.
|
On November 25 2012 14:17 tso wrote: good god this thread has gone to hell
Ditto. Oh well, I tried.
|
On November 28 2012 04:39 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 12:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 12:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 12:03 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:48 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it. As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals. Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue. You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that? My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread. I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement? And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda. Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up. Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts... "Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this. So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct? I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component. As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
|
On November 28 2012 09:39 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 04:39 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 12:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 12:09 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 12:03 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:48 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:31 mcc wrote:On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote:On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote: [quote] No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another. So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post. But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent). No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins. Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue. You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that? My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread. I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement? And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda. Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up. Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts... "Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this. So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct? I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component. As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ? lol, thought this thread had died. It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent. Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis . And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong? My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage". Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
|
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts..
Assuming you are talking about religious texts of established religions created for a specific purpose, the logic with in them are usually self perpetuating and unprovable / undisprovable, if religious assumptions are true then the logic system is valid, but with out concrete quantifiable proof it's impossible for other parties to observe, debate, or even understand your doctrines better with out accepting the arbituary basis assumptions of said religion. Unless I accept at face value that the Christian god is all mighty, all knowing, etc, and that Jesus is the son of God then everything about the religious belief system falls apart because nearly all of its logics, appeals to authority and credibility, etc are all based on these assumptions.
It also means that strictly speaking there should be no progress to be made in religious logic, no applications except the absolute, no evolution of ideas and concepts, because all of these assumptions are taken for granted as absolutely true. Has humanity's studies of Christianity developed further than it has in the past in the contexts of religious logics? Can humanity develop, improve, and overrule religious logic where it's no longer applicable? Can generations and millenias of developing Christian faith actually lend itself to any degree of growing closeness to God or understanding of God? Based on the fundamental assumptions all of the answers are no, because the assumptions are all absolute. Yet we see that in reality the religious bureacracy is always happy to make private amendments for the sake of popularity and revise their logic to suit their own singular purpose, where claims that these selfish and corrupt purposes reflect those of an unchanging God is ridiculous. A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid.
|
Its kinda sad to see. As a christian, I still think homosexuality is a sin, but shouldnt they know that honoring God and Human life comes before that? I dont care who you are, but if you're human, I have a basic sense of respect and honor for you whoever you are.
|
On November 28 2012 12:07 Obeast96 wrote: Its kinda sad to see. As a christian, I still think homosexuality is a sin, but shouldnt they know that honoring God and Human life comes before that? I dont care who you are, but if you're human, I have a basic sense of respect and honor for you whoever you are.
Well, the problem is that you need to make a distinction: Is the word of God and the scripture and writing of God absolute and law, or is it an ethics system and a school of thought applicable to free thinking people who can form their own selective appreciation. If the latter then it is no longer a religious bureacracy that you subscribe to, but a school of thought, I have absolutely no problems with people subscribing to differing schools of thought but I do have problems with people applying absolutely scriptures or doctrines of religious bureacracies as law. The major religious entities have given us great gifts in terms of thought, language, basic moral practices, and so on, but if we can't acknowledge the fact that thought advances and that society advances with differing needs and try to apply the same exact ruling then we run into problems.
Imagine if in the common law system there was absolutely no way of overturning a precedent case, and that the judge and jury needed neither to qualify or quantify their judgement beyond the innvocation of the constitution. This would be okay if every precedent setting case was absolutely unchangingly right and that the constitution was absolutely and unchanging good, but no such human constructs exist.
|
|
|
|