Re : ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>
>ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS
>
>SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS - DUBYA SPEAKS -
>IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying.
Atheist need to be included in Bush's Constitutional Amendment.
And while he's at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages.
That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about.
He's married to an Asian-American :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- U.S. President George W. Bush said he'd
>support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. ``Some activist
>judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine
>marriage,'' Bush said at the White House today. ``A few judges and local
>authorities are presuming to change one of the most fundamental institutions of
>civilization.'' Bush cited a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court
>allowing gay marriages and a decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to
>allow such marriages there. Bush doesn't oppose civil unions between gays,
>spokesman Scott McClellan said. Kerry also opposes gay marriage and supports
>the concept of legal unions between homosexuals. Religious conservatives had
>been criticizing Bush for failing to stop same-sex marriages in San Francisco,
>the Washington Times reported last week. In his remarks, Bush cited an
>``overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of
>marriage.'' Bush and his aides ``consulted a number of constitutional scholars
>and religious leaders'' before the president's decision to support a ban on gay
>marriage, McClellan told reporters. ``Unless action is taken, we can expect
>more arbitrary court cases, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local
>officials, all of which adds to uncertainty,'' Bush said. ``Their actions have
>created confusion on an issue that requires clarity,'' he said. ``On a matter
>of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Decisive and
>Democratic action is needed.'' (As opposed to Repubican action that is.)
>
>* Unless I am wrong, all this tension is centered around the use of the word
>marriage instead of civil unions or secular partnerships. Queers and Atheists
>can't get married. Or can Atheist get married? How can we allow Atheists to
>get married? These Atheists are undermining democracy because they have gotten
>married when they do not believe in God or his religions. Don't tell Dubya
>about this because his brain will explode trying to figure it out?
>John WorldPeace
>WorldPeace is one Word!!!
>http://www.johnworldpeace.com
>How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races,
>all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of peace?
maf 1029
wrote:
>>
>>
>>ATHIESTS CAN MARRY BUT NOT QUEERS
>>
>>SECULAR PARTNERSHIPS - DUBYA SPEAKS -
>>IF WE ARE GOING TO STOP QUEERS FROM GETTING MARRIED, WHAT ABOUT ATHEISTS?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying.
>Atheist need to be included in Bush's Constitutional Amendment.
>
>
>And while he's at it, I suppose he could include Mixed-Race Marriages.
>That should be enough to get a European-American friend of mine leaping about.
>He's married to an Asian-American :)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>- U.S. President George W. Bush said he'd
>>support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. ``Some activist
>>judges
I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
pissy.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
news:58dp30hbua7fhhr3b...@4ax.com...
can you define equal rights? Is a business man's rights being violated if he
travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two or more
states? Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
one individual?
Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from
New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy
lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar age of
consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive*
parents from giving such consent? http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
"Our movement today stresses the liberation and empowerment of young people.
Instead of pedagogy, democracy. Rather than a Greek love
mentor-relationship, the companionship of independent and autonomous
individuals. In place of male supremacy, a vision of sexual, economic, and
political liberation for all. Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of
children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream." - David Thorstad
http://www.nambla.org/
This slope *is* slippery
Scott
queersa...@yes.org
>
>I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
>religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
>public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
>courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
>pissy.
You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing,
because you are a depraved pervert.
I'm an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. How's that? All
atheists are not amoral trash like you.
--
Questo messaggio e' stato inoltrato automaticamente
da un paio di anonymous remailer. Il mittente originale
e' sconosciuto e non identificabile. Datevi pace.
Shan
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, maf 1029 < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
> >
> >I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
> >religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
> >public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
> >courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
> >pissy.
>
> You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing,
> because you are a depraved pervert.
Excrement brain, you may not use "moral" in a sentence while you are a
confessed A-Thos.
> I'm an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum. How's that? All
> atheists are not amoral trash like you.
Who cares what you are? You are obviously fishing to be fucked in the
ass so much that you would not be able to walk for a month or is you
comment made because you are drooling over a cock to suck.
How's your whore mother?
Shan
maf 1029
Yes.
>Is a business man's rights being violated if he
>travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two or more
>states?
No.
>Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
>one individual?
Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just
asked.
>Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love from
>New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy
>lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar age of
>consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict *progressive*
>parents from giving such consent? http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child's"
welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to
give informed consent, then yes. ("Child" in quotes because we are
talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is
still considered a minor in some respects.)
This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing
on the legality of such a case.
<snip quote from N*MBLA>
>This slope *is* slippery
Yes, your (non-)arguments denying equal access to same-sex marriage
are slippery slope, lubricated with your animus, no less.
maf 1029
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, maf 1029 < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>>
>>I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
>>religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
>>public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
>>courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
>>pissy.
>
>You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing,
>because you are a depraved pervert.
Spoken like a true theist bigot.
>I'm an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum.
You're as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish.
> How's that? All
>atheists are not amoral trash like you.
Sure, you're an atheist. <wink wink>
Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
Ok than do so. Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights?
>
>
> >Is a business man's rights being violated if he
> >travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two or
more
> >states?
>
> No.
Why not?
>
> >Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
> >one individual?
>
> Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just
> asked.
"to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP...
Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is automaticly
restricting mormans' religious freedom. Marriage is more than contract.
Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be
prevented, by law, from marriage? What reason would there be for doing so?
If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would
now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
>
> >Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love
from
> >New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy
> >lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar age
of
> >consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict
*progressive*
> >parents from giving such consent?
http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
>
> If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child's"
> welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to
> give informed consent, then yes.
Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s). If the
parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the parents
give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could
the state intervene?
("Child" in quotes because we are
> talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
> child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is
> still considered a minor in some respects.)
>
> This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
> your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
> your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
It affects my society. That makes it my business.
> Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing
> on the legality of such a case.
legal opinions are everyone's opinions. Thats why we are having this debate.
>
> <snip quote from N*MBLA>
>
> >This slope *is* slippery
>
> Yes, your (non-)arguments denying equal access to same-sex marriage
> are slippery slope, lubricated with your animus, no less.
looks to me you are the one here who is stressed by my questioning. When
changes is social structure are being put forth, I think it's healthy to
explore possible ramifications.
As far as the Church goes were marriages are sacramental, the church would
simply deny recognition of those unions.
Scott
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his
malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being
a religious bigot?
Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their
"tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren't as tolerant as they put themselves
out to be. As put forth by another liberal:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/28/93208.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/John_Stossel_QA_040126-5.html
Scott
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:e25r305j3a184jb6b...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Feb 2004 17:32:47 -0000, queersa...@yes.org wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, maf 1029 < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
>> >>religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
>> >>public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
>> >>courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
>> >>pissy.
>> >
>> >You will find it astonshing whenever anybody does a good and moral thing,
>> >because you are a depraved pervert.
>>
>> Spoken like a true theist bigot.
>>
>>
>> >I'm an atheist and I think you are loathesome scum.
>>
>> You're as much an atheist as JP 2 is Jewish.
>>
>> > How's that? All
>> >atheists are not amoral trash like you.
>>
>> Sure, you're an atheist. <wink wink>
>> Your malicious invective reveals you for what you really are.
>
>I could say the same for Chris Baba, aka, evil bible editor, and his
>malicious invective postings. Or does being an atheist immune him from being
>a religious bigot?
Yes.
How can he/she be religious if he/she's an atheist?
(HINT: what's the difference between "bigoted against religion"
and "religious bigot"?)
And yes, there are bigots among atheists. Atheists are human too, just
like theists, with the same foibles, prejudices, and character flaws.
We just have the brains not to blame the above on the word of an
imaginary friend.
>Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their
>"tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren't as tolerant as they put themselves
>out to be.
Sweetie, let me be absolutely clear:
Tolerant does not mean that I have to shut up and listen to some
bigot's bullshit. Tolerant means that I do nothing to impede said
bigot from spewing its smegmous drivel wherever it wishes. (It's a
concept called freedom of speech).
I am not obligated to listen. I am not obligated to support it, or to
even acknowledge that a bigot might have a cogent point. I am not
obligated to accept any bigoted rant as valid. I am not even obligated
to be polite about responding.
And yet, by responding, I am proving my tolerance, by acknowledging
the bigots' POV and providing an "audience," as it were, for them to
air their petty gripes, based on animus.
I'm way beyond tolerant.
Bigots just get cranky because I won't shut up.
maf 1029
Certainly.
right
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice
and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in
property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms;
protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property;
civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the
courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights
to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric
practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor;
and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of
speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair,
correct.
Now tack on this to the above:
Main Entry: 1equal Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: kwl
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another
or others : LIKE <equal quantities of bread for each man> <each placed
an equal distance from the door> <equal pay for equal work>b : like,
as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth,
quality, nature, ability, or status <held men to be equal in the sight
of God> <work equal to his best> ; specifically : receiving or
entitled to the same treatment or privileges any other individual has
or is entitled to <all men are created equal -- U.S. Declaration of
Independence> c : like, as great, or the same for each member of a
group or class <failing to provide equal opportunities> : uniform in
quantity or quality, measure or degree <an equal pressure throughout
the system>
2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL <in
equal care to nourish lord in hall or beast in stall -- Sidney Lanier>
<authors of the past and present should be judged with equal eyes --
F.O.Matthiessen> : FAIR, JUST <equal laws>
So, just to spell it out:
equal rights: entitlements to entitled to the same treatment or
privileges any other individual has or is entitled to, whether to
concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or
some interest in property, real or personal.
And then we have :
civil rights
n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process,
equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of
life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include
the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a
democratic society, such as equal access to public schools,
recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal
and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts.
And, as fate would have it, no less an authority than the SCOTUS has
declared marriage to be a civil right. And not just civil, but basic
and fundamental (cf Loving v. Virginia)
>Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
treated as EQUALS before the law.
>> >Is a business man's rights being violated if he
>> >travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two or
>more
>> >states?
>>
>> No.
>
>Why not?
Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two
people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the
two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license.
Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and
SSM.
>> >Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
>> >one individual?
>>
>> Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just
>> asked.
>
>"to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP...
Nice backpedal.
>Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is automaticly
>restricting mormans' religious freedom.
No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That's
part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not
allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their
church, as their church allows.
In the eyes of the law, though, it's one spouse at a time.
Number!= gender.
The above strawman is irrelevant.
>Marriage is more than contract.
Not in the eyes of the law.
You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your
marriage any way you wish.
>Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
This is not the case in the one state where CU's are permitted.
>Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be
>prevented, by law, from marriage?
Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
But since it was good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis............
>What reason would there be for doing so?
Ask the two gay cousins. Don't be surprised if they tell you to MYOB,
since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever.
>If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
>heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would
>now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling
legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
Consanguinity is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
>> >Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love
>from
>> >New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old boy
>> >lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar age
>of
>> >consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict
>*progressive*
>> >parents from giving such consent?
>http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
>>
>> If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child's"
>> welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to
>> give informed consent, then yes.
>
>Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s).
No. The age of consent is a well-defined legal term in each
jurisdiction. You are conflating AOC with emancipation of a minor.
If the AOC for marriage is 14, then a 14 year old can get married.
As I have already explained, the loophole in that is that the
consenting "child" has not reached the age of majority, and for those
under the age of majority, the state is still legally obligated, if
requested and if sufficient legal reason exists, to ensure the
education and welfare of said "child."
>If the
>parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the parents
>give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could
>the state intervene?
The hypothetical parents' consent is irrelevant, if the person in
question has reached AOC. IIRC, only the parents have legal standing
to question the "child's" legal competency to enter into a marriage,
and the parents approve, they probably wouldn't make such a challenge.
> ("Child" in quotes because we are
>> talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
>> child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is
>> still considered a minor in some respects.)
>>
>> This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
>> your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
>> your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
>
>It affects my society. That makes it my business.
It's my society too, Hoss. And I want SSM to be legal.
Your simple imagining trounces no one's right to have their grievances
redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to
deny anyone's rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to
show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the
anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal
representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue
has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost,
100% of the time.
It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way.
SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else's marriage.
SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can
fabricate.
SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any
religion.
>> Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing
>> on the legality of such a case.
>
>legal opinions are everyone's opinions. Thats why we are having this debate.
You wish.
>> <snip quote from N*MBLA>
>>
>> >This slope *is* slippery
>>
>> Yes, your (non-)arguments denying equal access to same-sex marriage
>> are slippery slope, lubricated with your animus, no less.
>
>looks to me you are the one here who is stressed by my questioning.
I have answered all your questions. some of them twice.
> When
>changes is social structure are being put forth, I think it's healthy to
>explore possible ramifications.
Then provide a legally sufficient and compelling argument against same
sex marriage.
Or, in lieu of that, please prove that SSM will cause the repeal of
consanguinity, number, and being single requirements of civil
marriage. You can do this by citing where it has happened in the
countries where SSM is legal.
>As far as the Church goes were marriages are sacramental, the church would
>simply deny recognition of those unions.
And that is any church's right to do so. Hell, a church could even
marry a ferret and a rocking chair, for all the law cares. It's still
not legal.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
I really wasn't looking for a dictionary quote. For example, atheists don't
believe in natural rights. Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic.
They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by according
to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws
resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive* laws
are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust? That brings
in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest do
this?
>
> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no
proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g. in
principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a
constitution.
>
> Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
> treated as EQUALS before the law.
Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold....all men are created
equal...." is not restricted to citizens. But that's not what I was asking.
Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves are
not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and
subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
>
> >> >Is a business man's rights being violated if he
> >> >travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two
or
> >more
> >> >states?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two
> people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the
> two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license.
> Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and
> SSM.
You're arguing from both sides of the fence. Marriage is different from
civil unions in that procreation is at least implied.
>
> >> >Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
> >> >one individual?
> >>
> >> Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just
> >> asked.
> >
> >"to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP...
>
> Nice backpedal.
clarifying isn't backpedaling. Marriage contracts are obviously between at
least two people.
>
> >Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is
automaticly
> >restricting mormans' religious freedom.
>
> No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That's
> part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not
> allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their
> church, as their church allows.
>
> In the eyes of the law, though, it's one spouse at a time.
> Number!= gender.
> The above strawman is irrelevant.
But that could also be held to be unconstitutional. They can make the exact
argument that gays are making.
>
> >Marriage is more than contract.
>
> Not in the eyes of the law.
> You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your
> marriage any way you wish.
Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those who
marry?
>
> >Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
>
> This is not the case in the one state where CU's are permitted.
>
> >Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be
> >prevented, by law, from marriage?
>
> Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
> But since it was good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis............
She was also a minor. Point was, though. there is no practical reason to
restict gays from marrying their first cousins. There is, however, a
practical biological reason for resticting marriage between hetro cousins.
But if you allow this marriage for gays and not hetros then rights are not
held equally any more. Intuitively, one feels something else is involved in
marriage than simply civil unions.
>
> >What reason would there be for doing so?
>
> Ask the two gay cousins. Don't be surprised if they tell you to MYOB,
> since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever.
>
> >If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
> >heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would
> >now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
>
> No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
You waffle between rights and rules.
>
> This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling
> legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
It's a philosophical perspective.
>
> Consanguinity is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
It's a rule impossed on marriage.
>
> >> >Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love
> >from
> >> >New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old
boy
> >> >lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar
age
> >of
> >> >consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict
> >*progressive*
> >> >parents from giving such consent?
> >http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
> >>
> >> If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child's"
> >> welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to
> >> give informed consent, then yes.
> >
> >Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s).
>
> No. The age of consent is a well-defined legal term in each
> jurisdiction. You are conflating AOC with emancipation of a minor.
>
> If the AOC for marriage is 14, then a 14 year old can get married.
> As I have already explained, the loophole in that is that the
> consenting "child" has not reached the age of majority, and for those
> under the age of majority, the state is still legally obligated, if
> requested and if sufficient legal reason exists, to ensure the
> education and welfare of said "child."
You a lawyer?
>
> >If the
> >parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the
parents
> >give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could
> >the state intervene?
>
> The hypothetical parents' consent is irrelevant, if the person in
> question has reached AOC. IIRC, only the parents have legal standing
> to question the "child's" legal competency to enter into a marriage,
> and the parents approve, they probably wouldn't make such a challenge.
Parental consent is required in the Texas.
>
> > ("Child" in quotes because we are
> >> talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
> >> child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is
> >> still considered a minor in some respects.)
> >>
> >> This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
> >> your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
> >> your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
> >
> >It affects my society. That makes it my business.
>
> It's my society too, Hoss. And I want SSM to be legal.
With 39 states outlawing it, you would appear to be out voted.
> Your simple imagining trounces no one's right to have their grievances
> redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to
> deny anyone's rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to
> show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the
> anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal
> representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue
> has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost,
> 100% of the time.
> It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way.
> SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else's marriage.
> SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can
> fabricate.
> SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any
> religion.
There's a chance that Constitution will be amended. And Rights spelled out
in them are only that, by atheism and, therefoe, not something intrinsic to
the human person.
Personnally, I not hopped up about the SSM argument for a civil point of
view. Philosophically, though, I want to know if there is a slippery slope
issue. I personnally think there is, only, because I've lived long enough to
see these slopes in action.
> >> Just as my opinion that 13 is too young to get married has no bearing
> >> on the legality of such a case.
> >
> >legal opinions are everyone's opinions. Thats why we are having this
debate.
>
> You wish.
>
> >> <snip quote from N*MBLA>
> >>
> >> >This slope *is* slippery
> >>
> >> Yes, your (non-)arguments denying equal access to same-sex marriage
> >> are slippery slope, lubricated with your animus, no less.
> >
> >looks to me you are the one here who is stressed by my questioning.
>
> I have answered all your questions. some of them twice.
>
> > When
> >changes is social structure are being put forth, I think it's healthy to
> >explore possible ramifications.
>
> Then provide a legally sufficient and compelling argument against same
> sex marriage.
> Or, in lieu of that, please prove that SSM will cause the repeal of
> consanguinity, number, and being single requirements of civil
> marriage. You can do this by citing where it has happened in the
> countries where SSM is legal.
What in the constitution denies marriage rights between more than two people
or between first cousins?
>
> >As far as the Church goes were marriages are sacramental, the church
would
> >simply deny recognition of those unions.
>
> And that is any church's right to do so. Hell, a church could even
> marry a ferret and a rocking chair, for all the law cares. It's still
> not legal.
Scott
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
he's a bigot, an intollerent bigot towards others beliefs in these news
groups that he trolls. Most athiests ignore him, I've been told.
>
> And yes, there are bigots among atheists. Atheists are human too, just
> like theists, with the same foibles, prejudices, and character flaws.
> We just have the brains not to blame the above on the word of an
> imaginary friend.
Catholic morality comes from Natural Law Theory. Read Aquinas.
>
> >Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their
> >"tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren't as tolerant as they put
themselves
> >out to be.
>
> Sweetie, let me be absolutely clear:
>
> Tolerant does not mean that I have to shut up and listen to some
> bigot's bullshit. Tolerant means that I do nothing to impede said
> bigot from spewing its smegmous drivel wherever it wishes. (It's a
> concept called freedom of speech).
> I am not obligated to listen. I am not obligated to support it, or to
> even acknowledge that a bigot might have a cogent point. I am not
> obligated to accept any bigoted rant as valid. I am not even obligated
> to be polite about responding.
>
> And yet, by responding, I am proving my tolerance, by acknowledging
> the bigots' POV and providing an "audience," as it were, for them to
> air their petty gripes, based on animus.
> I'm way beyond tolerant.
> Bigots just get cranky because I won't shut up.
I'm not cranky but you seem to be pretty emotional.
Scott
Alan Ferris
ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
>religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
>public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
>courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
>pissy.
Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life,
those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral
acts.
I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil
marriages.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Shan
This guy is one of the last living fossiles that will die out
eventually. Soon they will all be no where other than history.
Become liberal of die. You have no other option.
Shan
Tim
> Obviously, atheist must be stopped from marrying.
> Atheist need to be included in Bush's Constitutional Amendment.
Ironically, in your very jest, you'd rather uncovered both the actual
solution and identified the heart of the problem.
You see, marriage has no rightful place in government nor in law.
You must either accept marriage as a universally acceptable social
contract between any two partner types (so long as they are both of
legal contractual age, etc...) in which case certain privileges are
guaranteed without discrimination
OR
You accept that marriage is a purely religious institution, in which
case the government can promote no ritual, nor impose any sanction on
those that elect this rite.
It is akin to having tax benefits only for people that make a
bar/bat-mitvah.
Clearly it is a rather overlooked affront to the proclaimed seperation
of church and state.
It must be self-evident that the dilemma must arise because there are
deeply held religious beliefs. And I don't pretend to have a way to
reconcile those that believe one way with those that believe quite the
opposite.
So we have, using a religious allusion, a Solomon baby dilemma. If
the piously and genuinely religious truly respect the institute of
marriage, then they will allow it to be removed from the sovereignty
of the state and placed under the ministries of the various religious
authorities. In which case, some religion will permit (even if it's
not a currently extant religion) gay marriages.
If the fanatics force the gov't to handle the issue by legislative
decrees, then the issue must be handled in a non-discriminatory
manner, or we endanger the rights of absolutely everyone. What would
be next -- a tax paid only by shiksas (non-Jewish women), or perhaps a
tax-refund only for Imams.
maf 1029
There's always the pod people.......
maf 1029
And I wasn't really looking to argue what the words mean, so I didn't
bother paraphrasing.
>For example, atheists don't
>believe in natural rights.
So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
irrelevant to the law.
>Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic.
>They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by according
>to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws
>resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive* laws
>are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
> That brings
>in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest do
>this?
1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>>
>> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
>life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no
>proclivity to ethical realism
You wish.
Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral
relativism (sorry for the redundancy).
Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
irrelevant to the law.
>and therefore rights are arbitrated,
Not arbitrated, but____________.
>e.g. in
>principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a
>constitution.
No.
EG, suffrage.
>> Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
>> treated as EQUALS before the law.
>
>Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold....all men are created
>equal...." is not restricted to citizens. But that's not what I was asking.
>Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves are
>not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and
>subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
Very Orwellian.
>> >> >Is a business man's rights being violated if he
>> >> >travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two
>or
>> >more
>> >> >states?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Why not?
>>
>> Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two
>> people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the
>> two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license.
>> Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and
>> SSM.
>
>You're arguing from both sides of the fence.
No. I am arguing one issue, and it's not number.
>Marriage is different from
>civil unions in that procreation is at least implied.
In your non-legal opinion.
>> >> >Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
>> >> >one individual?
>> >>
>> >> Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just
>> >> asked.
>> >
>> >"to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP...
>>
>> Nice backpedal.
>
>clarifying isn't backpedaling.
Changing the meaning of what you wrote is.
>Marriage contracts are obviously between at
>least two people.
ONLY two people.
>>
>> >Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is
>automaticly
>> >restricting mormans' religious freedom.
>>
>> No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That's
>> part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not
>> allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their
>> church, as their church allows.
>>
>> In the eyes of the law, though, it's one spouse at a time.
>> Number!= gender.
>> The above strawman is irrelevant.
>
>But that could also be held to be unconstitutional.
I suppose it could be. But that is a different argument, and one in
which I have no interest in pursuing, as thae issue of number of
partners is irrelevant to the issue of the gender/sex of the two
partners.
>They can make the exact
>argument that gays are making.
But that is a different argument, and one in which I have no interest
in pursuing, as thae issue of number of partners is irrelevant to the
issue of the gender/sex of the two partners.
>>
>> >Marriage is more than contract.
>>
>> Not in the eyes of the law.
>> You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your
>> marriage any way you wish.
>
>Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those who
>marry?
The pro-SSM argument is not for civil unions, hence the M is SSM.
The ability to file a joint tax return is one of 1000+ rights and
priveleges conferred by marriage.
>> >Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
>>
>> This is not the case in the one state where CU's are permitted.
>>
>> >Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be
>> >prevented, by law, from marriage?
>>
>> Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
>> But since it was good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis............
>
>
>She was also a minor.
Ah, but were Myra and Jerry in violation of non-sonsanguinity
restrictions?
You are arguing from both sides of the fence here, said fence dividing
consanguinity and AOC.
>Point was, though. there is no practical reason to
>restict gays from marrying their first cousins.
No one is arguing for a change in the consanguinity restriction.
The is sue being argued is restriction based on the gender/sex of the
couple.
The consanguinity issue is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
>There is, however, a
>practical biological reason for resticting marriage between hetro cousins.
>But if you allow this marriage for gays and not hetros then rights are not
>held equally any more.
Only you are suggesting this, not anyone arguing pro-SSM.
The pro-SSM argument is concerned with the gender/sex of the couple.
Any other issues are irrelevant.
>Intuitively, one feels something else is involved in
>marriage than simply civil unions.
An ethnocentric, culturally inspired, non-legal feeling, at best.
>> >What reason would there be for doing so?
>>
>> Ask the two gay cousins. Don't be surprised if they tell you to MYOB,
>> since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever.
>>
>> >If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
>> >heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would
>> >now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
>>
>> No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
>
>You waffle between rights and rules.
Just following your lead.
>> This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling
>> legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
>
>
>It's a philosophical perspective.
And not a compelling legal argument.
>> Consanguinity is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
>
>It's a rule impossed on marriage.
So? No one is arguing that the consanguinity restrictions be changed.
The issue the gender of the couple. Anything else is irrelevant.
>> >> >Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love
>> >from
>> >> >New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old
>boy
>> >> >lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar
>age
>> >of
>> >> >consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict
>> >*progressive*
>> >> >parents from giving such consent?
>> >http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
>> >>
>> >> If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child's"
>> >> welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to
>> >> give informed consent, then yes.
>> >
>> >Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s).
>>
>> No. The age of consent is a well-defined legal term in each
>> jurisdiction. You are conflating AOC with emancipation of a minor.
>>
>> If the AOC for marriage is 14, then a 14 year old can get married.
>> As I have already explained, the loophole in that is that the
>> consenting "child" has not reached the age of majority, and for those
>> under the age of majority, the state is still legally obligated, if
>> requested and if sufficient legal reason exists, to ensure the
>> education and welfare of said "child."
>
>You a lawyer?
Does that matter?
Casting aspersion will not negate my point.
Posting a cite from a legal definition or ruling might, if I am, in
fact, in error.
>> >If the
>> >parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the
>parents
>> >give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could
>> >the state intervene?
>>
>> The hypothetical parents' consent is irrelevant, if the person in
>> question has reached AOC. IIRC, only the parents have legal standing
>> to question the "child's" legal competency to enter into a marriage,
>> and the parents approve, they probably wouldn't make such a challenge.
>
>Parental consent is required in the Texas.
That's because the AOC in Texas is 18.
Texas is not relevant to your own hypothetical example.
>> > ("Child" in quotes because we are
>> >> talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
>> >> child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is
>> >> still considered a minor in some respects.)
>> >>
>> >> This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
>> >> your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
>> >> your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
>> >
>> >It affects my society. That makes it my business.
>>
>> It's my society too, Hoss. And I want SSM to be legal.
>
>With 39 states outlawing it, you would appear to be out voted.
Civil rights, such as marriage, are not up to a majority vote.
And the beauty part for you: when MA allows SSM in May, no state which
opposes SSM will be required to perform them. They will be required to
recognize them, as they would any other legal marriage, though.
>> Your simple imagining trounces no one's right to have their grievances
>> redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to
>> deny anyone's rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to
>> show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the
>> anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal
>> representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue
>> has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost,
>> 100% of the time.
>> It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way.
>> SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else's marriage.
>> SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can
>> fabricate.
>> SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any
>> religion.
>
>There's a chance that Constitution will be amended.
Neither eventual nor, dare I say, realistic.
>And Rights spelled out
>in them are only that, by atheism
No, by law.
Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
irrelevant to the law.
>and, therefoe, not something intrinsic to
>the human person.
Not according to the laws of the United States, which laws respect no
religion, not even the Deism to which you are alluding.
>Personnally, I not hopped up about the SSM argument for a civil point of
>view. Philosophically, though, I want to know if there is a slippery slope
>issue. I personnally think there is, only, because I've lived long enough to
>see these slopes in action.
The slippery slope issue is that allowing SSM will somehow lead to
multiple partner marriages, changing of consanguinity requirements,
and all manner of imaginary horrors fabricated by the anti-SSM crowd.
This is done to obfuscate the real issue: what is the compelling legal
reason to deny SSM. The anti-SSM crowd has no reason other than
personal animus, which is not a compelling legal reason.
maf 1029
And I wasn't really looking to argue what the words mean, so I didn't
bother paraphrasing.
>For example, atheists don't
>believe in natural rights.
So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
irrelevant to the law.
>Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic.
>They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by according
>to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws
>resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive* laws
>are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
> That brings
>in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest do
>this?
1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>>
>> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
>life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no
>proclivity to ethical realism
You wish.
Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral
relativism (sorry for the redundancy).
Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
irrelevant to the law.
>and therefore rights are arbitrated,
Not arbitrated, but____________.
>e.g. in
>principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a
>constitution.
No.
EG, suffrage.
>> Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
>> treated as EQUALS before the law.
>
>Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold....all men are created
>equal...." is not restricted to citizens. But that's not what I was asking.
>Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves are
>not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and
>subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
Very Orwellian.
>> >> >Is a business man's rights being violated if he
>> >> >travels regularly and can't have a different marriage partner in two
>or
>> >more
>> >> >states?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Why not?
>>
>> Civil marriage is a contract between two people, not more than two
>> people. The legal issue in question is whether the sex/gender of the
>> two people is sufficient legal grounds to deny a marriage license.
>> Number is not gender. The issue of number is irrelevant to gender and
>> SSM.
>
>You're arguing from both sides of the fence.
No. I am arguing one issue, and it's not number.
>Marriage is different from
>civil unions in that procreation is at least implied.
In your non-legal opinion.
>> >> >Is it against equal rights to restrict marriage contracts to only
>> >> >one individual?
>> >>
>> >> Marriage is a contract between TWO people, not one, as you have just
>> >> asked.
>> >
>> >"to only one [other] individual" is two" but BSTP...
>>
>> Nice backpedal.
>
>clarifying isn't backpedaling.
Changing the meaning of what you wrote is.
>Marriage contracts are obviously between at
>least two people.
ONLY two people.
>>
>> >Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is
>automaticly
>> >restricting mormans' religious freedom.
>>
>> No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That's
>> part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not
>> allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their
>> church, as their church allows.
>>
>> In the eyes of the law, though, it's one spouse at a time.
>> Number!= gender.
>> The above strawman is irrelevant.
>
>But that could also be held to be unconstitutional.
I suppose it could be. But that is a different argument, and one in
which I have no interest in pursuing, as thae issue of number of
partners is irrelevant to the issue of the gender/sex of the two
partners.
>They can make the exact
>argument that gays are making.
But that is a different argument, and one in which I have no interest
in pursuing, as thae issue of number of partners is irrelevant to the
issue of the gender/sex of the two partners.
>>
>> >Marriage is more than contract.
>>
>> Not in the eyes of the law.
>> You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your
>> marriage any way you wish.
>
>Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those who
>marry?
The pro-SSM argument is not for civil unions, hence the M is SSM.
The ability to file a joint tax return is one of 1000+ rights and
priveleges conferred by marriage.
>> >Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
>>
>> This is not the case in the one state where CU's are permitted.
>>
>> >Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they be
>> >prevented, by law, from marriage?
>>
>> Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
>> But since it was good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis............
>
>
>She was also a minor.
Ah, but were Myra and Jerry in violation of non-sonsanguinity
restrictions?
You are arguing from both sides of the fence here, said fence dividing
consanguinity and AOC.
>Point was, though. there is no practical reason to
>restict gays from marrying their first cousins.
No one is arguing for a change in the consanguinity restriction.
The is sue being argued is restriction based on the gender/sex of the
couple.
The consanguinity issue is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
>There is, however, a
>practical biological reason for resticting marriage between hetro cousins.
>But if you allow this marriage for gays and not hetros then rights are not
>held equally any more.
Only you are suggesting this, not anyone arguing pro-SSM.
The pro-SSM argument is concerned with the gender/sex of the couple.
Any other issues are irrelevant.
>Intuitively, one feels something else is involved in
>marriage than simply civil unions.
An ethnocentric, culturally inspired, non-legal feeling, at best.
>> >What reason would there be for doing so?
>>
>> Ask the two gay cousins. Don't be surprised if they tell you to MYOB,
>> since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever.
>>
>> >If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
>> >heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays would
>> >now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
>>
>> No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
>
>You waffle between rights and rules.
Just following your lead.
>> This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling
>> legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
>
>
>It's a philosophical perspective.
And not a compelling legal argument.
>> Consanguinity is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
>
>It's a rule impossed on marriage.
So? No one is arguing that the consanguinity restrictions be changed.
The issue the gender of the couple. Anything else is irrelevant.
>> >> >Why not a 30 year old woman how wants to marry a 13 year old girl love
>> >from
>> >> >New Hampshire? Or a 30 year old man wanting to marry his 14 year old
>boy
>> >> >lover from the same state... or any of other states with the similar
>age
>> >of
>> >> >consent laws? Would these states have the right to restrict
>> >*progressive*
>> >> >parents from giving such consent?
>> >http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
>> >>
>> >> If the state could make a compelling legal argument that the "child's"
>> >> welfare was in danger, or that the "child"was legally incompetent to
>> >> give informed consent, then yes.
>> >
>> >Age of consent is not by the child but, rather, by the parent(s).
>>
>> No. The age of consent is a well-defined legal term in each
>> jurisdiction. You are conflating AOC with emancipation of a minor.
>>
>> If the AOC for marriage is 14, then a 14 year old can get married.
>> As I have already explained, the loophole in that is that the
>> consenting "child" has not reached the age of majority, and for those
>> under the age of majority, the state is still legally obligated, if
>> requested and if sufficient legal reason exists, to ensure the
>> education and welfare of said "child."
>
>You a lawyer?
Does that matter?
Casting aspersion will not negate my point.
Posting a cite from a legal definition or ruling might, if I am, in
fact, in error.
>> >If the
>> >parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the
>parents
>> >give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how could
>> >the state intervene?
>>
>> The hypothetical parents' consent is irrelevant, if the person in
>> question has reached AOC. IIRC, only the parents have legal standing
>> to question the "child's" legal competency to enter into a marriage,
>> and the parents approve, they probably wouldn't make such a challenge.
>
>Parental consent is required in the Texas.
That's because the AOC in Texas is 18.
Texas is not relevant to your own hypothetical example.
>> > ("Child" in quotes because we are
>> >> talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
>> >> child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and is
>> >> still considered a minor in some respects.)
>> >>
>> >> This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
>> >> your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
>> >> your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
>> >
>> >It affects my society. That makes it my business.
>>
>> It's my society too, Hoss. And I want SSM to be legal.
>
>With 39 states outlawing it, you would appear to be out voted.
Civil rights, such as marriage, are not up to a majority vote.
And the beauty part for you: when MA allows SSM in May, no state which
opposes SSM will be required to perform them. They will be required to
recognize them, as they would any other legal marriage, though.
>> Your simple imagining trounces no one's right to have their grievances
>> redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to
>> deny anyone's rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to
>> show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the
>> anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal
>> representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue
>> has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost,
>> 100% of the time.
>> It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way.
>> SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else's marriage.
>> SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can
>> fabricate.
>> SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any
>> religion.
>
>There's a chance that Constitution will be amended.
Neither eventual nor, dare I say, realistic.
>And Rights spelled out
>in them are only that, by atheism
No, by law.
Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
irrelevant to the law.
>and, therefoe, not something intrinsic to
>the human person.
Not according to the laws of the United States, which laws respect no
religion, not even the Deism to which you are alluding.
>Personnally, I not hopped up about the SSM argument for a civil point of
>view. Philosophically, though, I want to know if there is a slippery slope
>issue. I personnally think there is, only, because I've lived long enough to
>see these slopes in action.
The slippery slope issue is that allowing SSM will somehow lead to
multiple partner marriages, changing of consanguinity requirements,
and all manner of imaginary horrors fabricated by the anti-SSM crowd.
This is done to obfuscate the real issue: what is the compelling legal
reason to deny SSM. The anti-SSM crowd has no reason other than
personal animus, which is not a compelling legal reason.
maf 1029
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:45:06 GMT, maf 1029 <
>ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>
>>I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
>>religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
>>public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
>>courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
>>pissy.
>
>Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life,
>those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral
>acts.
And I knew this already.
BTW, do I get a toaster oven with that welcome?
>I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil
>marriages.
Because Christianity in this country thinks they have the monopoly,
trademark, and copyright on marriage.
maf 1029
Then I don't feel so bad about relegating that cretin to my twitfile.
>>
>> And yes, there are bigots among atheists. Atheists are human too, just
>> like theists, with the same foibles, prejudices, and character flaws.
>> We just have the brains not to blame the above on the word of an
>> imaginary friend.
>
>Catholic morality comes from Natural Law Theory. Read Aquinas.
Like I said, atheists just have the brains not to blame the above on
an imaginary friend.
>>
>> >Admittedly, I have a problem with so called liberals who wear their
>> >"tolerance" on their sleeve. They aren't as tolerant as they put
>themselves
>> >out to be.
>>
>> Sweetie, let me be absolutely clear:
>>
>> Tolerant does not mean that I have to shut up and listen to some
>> bigot's bullshit. Tolerant means that I do nothing to impede said
>> bigot from spewing its smegmous drivel wherever it wishes. (It's a
>> concept called freedom of speech).
>> I am not obligated to listen. I am not obligated to support it, or to
>> even acknowledge that a bigot might have a cogent point. I am not
>> obligated to accept any bigoted rant as valid. I am not even obligated
>> to be polite about responding.
>>
>> And yet, by responding, I am proving my tolerance, by acknowledging
>> the bigots' POV and providing an "audience," as it were, for them to
>> air their petty gripes, based on animus.
>> I'm way beyond tolerant.
>> Bigots just get cranky because I won't shut up.
>
>I'm not cranky but you seem to be pretty emotional.
Not really, considering. Although, I have to wonder how many times I
have to read that any SSM I might have in the future will result in
someone else (or me) marrying a dog, a parent, a sibling, having
multiple marriage partners, etc., before I am allowed to take it
personally.
I also wonder how many times I have to read gays only have sex, you're
not worthy of a marriage like my good, right, and holy marriage
because I'm better than you, gay men will rape your sons, you fag
activists have no business standing up for equal rights, you should
know your place and just be content to live your life, etc., before
I'm allowed to respond in kind.
I've tried responding politely and as a gay man, I have tried to put a
"human face" on the issue, in the misguided belief that a personal
touch like that might make it harder to spread the hate. I was wrong.
This whole SSM debate isn't about marriage. It's about how profoundly
some people hate others.
>
Alan Ferris
ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:36:49 +0000, Alan Ferris <al...@spamddandd.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:45:06 GMT, maf 1029 <
>>ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>>
>>>I find it astounding that when the courts rule in favor of
>>>religionists (specifically in cases of wearing religious symbols in
>>>public schools), then it's all hooray-hooray. But when those same
>>>courts acknowledge equal rights for others, then the bigots get all
>>>pissy.
>>
>>Welcome to the wonderful world of hypocrisy. As often in this life,
>>those who shout the most about being moral, are the leaders of immoral
>>acts.
>
>And I knew this already.
>BTW, do I get a toaster oven with that welcome?
>
>>I am still struggling to understand why churches want a say in Civil
>>marriages.
>
>Because Christianity in this country thinks they have the monopoly,
>trademark, and copyright on marriage.
Fortunately in the UK people are waking up to the fact that even
though they put themselves as Christian on forms, less than half of
them believe in God.
I must admit, I think I quite like my nation of mainly Godless
Christians. They do much less harm than when we were a nation of
Godly Christians.
Which always makes me feel really sad for those Christians who are
trying to make the best out of this crazy world. To have to share the
same faith as Mark Johnson and others would drive me crazy.
maf 1029
wrote:
<sigh>
I wish we could say the same here in Bushistan.
>Which always makes me feel really sad for those Christians who are
>trying to make the best out of this crazy world. To have to share the
>same faith as Mark Johnson and others would drive me crazy.
Aye, there's the rub: MJ claims he's not of the same faith as
Catholics.
Alan Ferris
>But being an atheist, you have no
>proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g. in
>principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held in a
>constitution.
Your inability to understand just laws without faith does not mean you
can Mark Johnson (Project) them onto others.
I do hold certain rights to be inherent. I know I and many follow
what is often known as the golden rule. This is not based on faith,
but on simple morality gained by thinking about it, rather than being
told it.
I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you
need to be told it is wrong?
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
natural law has more to do with morals than law. How does one determine a
law is immoral?
>
> >Also "Positive civil rights" are not intrinsic.
> >They are mearly the laws the people pass to govern themselves by
according
> >to the culture they want to have in. We the people can pass positive laws
> >resticting marriage contracts. The question is whether those *positive*
laws
> >are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
>
> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
>
> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
Unjust laws have traditionally been defined by weighing the relavence to
natural law theory.
>
>
> > That brings
> >in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest
do
> >this?
>
> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
>
> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
In a secular world civil rights are subjective. In ethics subjectivism is
referred to as non-cognative to anti-realism. They aren't objective. So the
problem comes down to defining what is a civil right and that by necessaity
must be arbitrated, arbitrary.
>
> >>
> >> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
>
> >life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no
> >proclivity to ethical realism
>
> You wish.
hmmm. I don't think understand what's involved here. I've never met an
athiest who was a moral realist/objectivist.
> Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral
> relativism (sorry for the redundancy).
> Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
> irrelevant to the law.
I'm a moral realist. Moral relativism is subjectivism applied
intersubjectively to a social group.
>
> >and therefore rights are arbitrated,
>
> Not arbitrated, but____________.
finish it _________
>
> >e.g. in
> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held
in a
> >constitution.
>
> No.
> EG, suffrage.
>
> >> Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
> >> treated as EQUALS before the law.
> >
> >Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold....all men are created
> >equal...." is not restricted to citizens. But that's not what I was
asking.
> >Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves
are
> >not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and
> >subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
>
> Very Orwellian.
No. Very Jeffersonian. Your right to liberty doesn't trump someone else's
right to life. Your right to happiness doesn't trump someone else's right to
liberty.
I don't know of any marriage being a one way street.
>
> >Marriage contracts are obviously between at
> >least two people.
>
> ONLY two people.
ONLY because that is how the law is written. BUT is this law an UNjust law?
I'm getting from you that a law retricting gays from marriage would be an
unjust law. If that is so then why would it be? I think this is are the
cruxes of this debate.
If any consenting adults are retricted, by law, from marriage are there any
rights being violated? Of what business is it of the gorvernment to restrict
any type of marriage - gay, polygamist, etc - if the marriage contract is
between adults?
> >>
> >> >Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is
> >automaticly
> >> >restricting mormans' religious freedom.
> >>
> >> No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That's
> >> part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not
> >> allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their
> >> church, as their church allows.
> >>
> >> In the eyes of the law, though, it's one spouse at a time.
> >> Number!= gender.
> >> The above strawman is irrelevant.
> >
> >But that could also be held to be unconstitutional.
>
> I suppose it could be. But that is a different argument, and one in
> which I have no interest in pursuing, as thae issue of number of
> partners is irrelevant to the issue of the gender/sex of the two
> partners.
It depends on how marriage is defined, traditionally or arbitrarily. Look,
anytime a social issue developes that would change cultural norms it is
reasonable to expect a cultural tug-of-war. To not expect this is naive.
Labeling something bigotted in an attempt to shut down debate is label
something else politically correct.
I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing in your 20's. I'm in my now
late 40's. I've seen slippery slopes come to fruition. If the culture
changes the diffintion of marriage from....
1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the
institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and
legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family -- see
MONOGAMY, POLYGAMY
...to that of a contractual arriangment between adults, I don't see how
polygamy, in the long run, can be exclued. Why should it be?
I'm interested in what, if any, negative long-term changes might bring. An
argument in point:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
>
> >They can make the exact
> >argument that gays are making.
>
> But that is a different argument, and one in which I have no interest
> in pursuing, as thae issue of number of partners is irrelevant to the
> issue of the gender/sex of the two partners.
Sorry, but I think that's naive or intellectually lazy to not speculate
about potential cultural consequences
>
> >>
> >> >Marriage is more than contract.
> >>
> >> Not in the eyes of the law.
> >> You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your
> >> marriage any way you wish.
> >
> >Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those
who
> >marry?
>
> The pro-SSM argument is not for civil unions, hence the M is SSM.
> The ability to file a joint tax return is one of 1000+ rights and
> priveleges conferred by marriage.
And why is that? Why are those given to married couples? Why are we given
tax exemptions for the number of kids we have? The reasons for those are
social/political and not constitutional law.
>
> >> >Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
> >>
> >> This is not the case in the one state where CU's are permitted.
> >>
> >> >Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they
be
> >> >prevented, by law, from marriage?
> >>
> >> Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
> >> But since it was good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis............
> >
> >
> >She was also a minor.
>
> Ah, but were Myra and Jerry in violation of non-sonsanguinity
> restrictions?
> You are arguing from both sides of the fence here, said fence dividing
> consanguinity and AOC.
>
> >Point was, though. there is no practical reason to
> >restict gays from marrying their first cousins.
>
> No one is arguing for a change in the consanguinity restriction.
> The is sue being argued is restriction based on the gender/sex of the
> couple.
> The consanguinity issue is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
It is relevant to a slippery slope legislation. You have no logical reason
to restrict consanguinity in gay marriages if you allow gay marriages.
>
> >There is, however, a
> >practical biological reason for resticting marriage between hetro
cousins.
> >But if you allow this marriage for gays and not hetros then rights are
not
> >held equally any more.
>
> Only you are suggesting this, not anyone arguing pro-SSM.
> The pro-SSM argument is concerned with the gender/sex of the couple.
> Any other issues are irrelevant.
Not in the long run. Any philosophical change you bring to the table will
have unforeseen logical conclusion down the road. It's naive to ignore this.
>
> >Intuitively, one feels something else is involved in
> >marriage than simply civil unions.
>
> An ethnocentric, culturally inspired, non-legal feeling, at best.
No, at worst. Why should tradtionalism and cultrualism such a dirty word?
>
>
> >> >What reason would there be for doing so?
> >>
> >> Ask the two gay cousins. Don't be surprised if they tell you to MYOB,
> >> since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever.
> >>
> >> >If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
> >> >heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays
would
> >> >now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
> >>
> >> No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
> >
> >You waffle between rights and rules.
>
> Just following your lead.
Is that what you do, follow the liberal lead without self-reflection to
consequences down the way?
>
> >> This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling
> >> legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
> >
> >
> >It's a philosophical perspective.
>
> And not a compelling legal argument.
The same is true for polygamy and gay cousins marrying. What compelling
legal argument is there, aside from culture?
??? Yes they are if amended to the constitution would be made. It takes 38
states to amend it. 39 have laws against gay marriage.
>
> And the beauty part for you: when MA allows SSM in May, no state which
> opposes SSM will be required to perform them. They will be required to
> recognize them, as they would any other legal marriage, though.
Only if the issue comes before the Supreme Court and the "Defense of
Marriage Act" is deemed un-constitutional. If that happens, expect a push to
amend the Constitution.
>
> >> Your simple imagining trounces no one's right to have their grievances
> >> redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to
> >> deny anyone's rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to
> >> show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the
> >> anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal
> >> representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue
> >> has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost,
> >> 100% of the time.
> >> It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way.
> >> SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else's marriage.
> >> SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can
> >> fabricate.
> >> SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any
> >> religion.
> >
> >There's a chance that Constitution will be amended.
>
> Neither eventual nor, dare I say, realistic.
never say never.
>
> >And Rights spelled out
> >in them are only that, by atheism
>
> No, by law.
> Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
> irrelevant to the law.
Atheism is no irrelevant moral philsophy and law is not irrelevant to
morality. I'm amazed at how little so many athiests in these groups know
about ethical philosophies and those philosophies' philosophical
conclusions.
>
> >and, therefoe, not something intrinsic to
> >the human person.
>
> Not according to the laws of the United States, which laws respect no
> religion, not even the Deism to which you are alluding.
Wrong. Those laws are suppose to favor no religion but the *are* to respect
all religions.
Separation of church and state does not mean separation from culture and
religion.
>
> >Personnally, I not hopped up about the SSM argument for a civil point of
> >view. Philosophically, though, I want to know if there is a slippery
slope
> >issue. I personnally think there is, only, because I've lived long enough
to
> >see these slopes in action.
>
> The slippery slope issue is that allowing SSM will somehow lead to
> multiple partner marriages, changing of consanguinity requirements,
> and all manner of imaginary horrors fabricated by the anti-SSM crowd.
> This is done to obfuscate the real issue: what is the compelling legal
> reason to deny SSM. The anti-SSM crowd has no reason other than
> personal animus, which is not a compelling legal reason.
Slippery slope are real possibilities here.
Scott
Scott
"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:bti440t3c3e717u7c...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:58:49 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >But being an atheist, you have no
> >proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g.
in
> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held
in a
> >constitution.
>
> Your inability to understand just laws without faith does not mean you
> can Mark Johnson (Project) them onto others.
>
> I do hold certain rights to be inherent.
Really, atheist? And just how and when did these rights become
endowed/inherent onto you? Were these rights inherited to you at conception?
I know I and many follow
> what is often known as the golden rule. This is not based on faith,
> but on simple morality gained by thinking about it, rather than being
> told it.
you were a masochist.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
I had a gay secretary who had a marriage ceremony.
Scott
Scott
"Shan" <shank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71bd538c.04022...@posting.google.com...
Like John Stossel? Tell that to Mel Gibson and the mega bucks he took in the
last 5 days.
Scott
Alan Ferris
>
>"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
>news:bti440t3c3e717u7c...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:58:49 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >But being an atheist, you have no
>> >proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g.
>in
>> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held
>in a
>> >constitution.
>>
>> Your inability to understand just laws without faith does not mean you
>> can Mark Johnson (Project) them onto others.
>>
>> I do hold certain rights to be inherent.
>
>Really, atheist? And just how and when did these rights become
>endowed/inherent onto you? Were these rights inherited to you at conception?
They existed long before I was born. The fact you have no empathy
without a god to tell you to is not my problem but yours.
>
> I know I and many follow
>> what is often known as the golden rule. This is not based on faith,
>> but on simple morality gained by thinking about it, rather than being
>> told it.
>
>you were a masochist.
I am not surprised you make a false statement. Without the Church to
guide you in this you are all adrift.
When you learn to think for yourself and realise why it is better to
work with society than against, why it is better to help others rather
than harm others, without being told to, then you may know where to
being discussing this.
>>
>> I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you
>> need to be told it is wrong?
I see this was lost on you. From your responses I know why.
Alan Ferris
>> This whole SSM debate isn't about marriage. It's about how profoundly
>> some people hate others.
>
>I had a gay secretary who had a marriage ceremony.
And the marriages round the world carried on without falling apart as
the Church seems to believe they will.
Scott
by your own admition you practiced self harm.
>
> When you learn to think for yourself and realise why it is better to
> work with society than against,
<whose society?>
why it is better to help others rather
> than harm others, without being told to, then you may know where to
> being discussing this.
another preaching atheist. Where's dan fake? Yea, allan, I can read in here
anytime about how charitable you are to others.
>
> >>
> >> I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you
> >> need to be told it is wrong?
>
> I see this was lost on you. From your responses I know why.
Ah yes. Alan Ferris who fancies himself as being on a heroes quest to slay
his imaginary dragons.
Scott
Scott
Scott
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:07:55 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> This whole SSM debate isn't about marriage. It's about how profoundly
> >> some people hate others.
> >
> >I had a gay secretary who had a marriage ceremony.
>
> And the marriages round the world carried on without falling apart as
> the Church seems to believe they will.
your hyperbole is as boarish as ever
Scott
Alan Ferris
So? You again are digging yourself a deeper hole and just proving me
correct. Thanks :)
>> When you learn to think for yourself and realise why it is better to
>> work with society than against,
>
><whose society?>
any society.
> why it is better to help others rather
>> than harm others, without being told to, then you may know where to
>> being discussing this.
>
>another preaching atheist. Where's dan fake? Yea, allan, I can read in here
>anytime about how charitable you are to others.
You have no clue about me. Do go ahead and do what most do. I and
others enjoy reading what people write about me. i keep hoping that
someday they may get close.
>> >>
>> >> I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you
>> >> need to be told it is wrong?
>>
>> I see this was lost on you. From your responses I know why.
>
>Ah yes. Alan Ferris who fancies himself as being on a heroes quest to slay
>his imaginary dragons.
ROFLMAO! When you stop projecting you might learn something.
But I do love it when christians start trying to tell me about myself.
Really shows how they have not even got a clue about themselves.
Scott
fact. So no false statement. by def that makes/made you a masochist.
You again are digging yourself a deeper hole and just proving me
> correct. Thanks :)
<Aren't sound bits great?>
That's right, Allan, I'm just another one of your bigots who has a strong
dislike for you and that you must champion against. Correct? Thanks:)
>
> >> When you learn to think for yourself and realise why it is better to
> >> work with society than against,
> >
> ><whose society?>
>
> any society.
Oh? so we should've worked with Saddam's society. Or the Korth Korean
society.
>
> > why it is better to help others rather
> >> than harm others, without being told to, then you may know where to
> >> being discussing this.
> >
> >another preaching atheist. Where's dan fake? Yea, allan, I can read in
here
> >anytime about how charitable you are to others.
>
> You have no clue about me. Do go ahead and do what most do. I and
> others enjoy reading what people write about me. i keep hoping that
> someday they may get close.
self-absorbed. Maybe one day you'll self-reflect as to why they dislike you
so much.
People respond to you in here based on what you write. Why would you expect
anything less?
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you
> >> >> need to be told it is wrong?
> >>
> >> I see this was lost on you. From your responses I know why.
> >
> >Ah yes. Alan Ferris who fancies himself as being on a heroes quest to
slay
> >his imaginary dragons.
>
> ROFLMAO! When you stop projecting you might learn something.
>
> But I do love it when christians start trying to tell me about myself.
Does that mean you hate it when non-christians tell you about yourself?
> Really shows how they have not even got a clue about themselves.
<Pot calling the kettle black> So no christian in here has a clue about you?
BUT here you claim to know oh so much about them. What was that you were
saying about projecting? You complain when you feel someone else is
projecting onto you and then you turn right around and hypoctically project
onto whole *society*. What was that you were saying about *you* following
the Golden Rule, and working within *any* society?
Scott
Alan Ferris
Only in your tiny mind. The fact you cannot see beyond is as limited
as your source for this info.
> You again are digging yourself a deeper hole and just proving me
>> correct. Thanks :)
>
><Aren't sound bits great?>
>
>That's right, Allan, I'm just another one of your bigots who has a strong
>dislike for you and that you must champion against. Correct? Thanks:)
No again as usual you are wrong.
Why is it you take delight in making stupidly false comments about
others?
>> >> When you learn to think for yourself and realise why it is better to
>> >> work with society than against,
>> >
>> ><whose society?>
>>
>> any society.
>
>Oh? so we should've worked with Saddam's society. Or the Korth Korean
>society.
Well for all his faults, he has less deaths in the last 2 years from
violence than has occurred since the west has brought them democracy.
Did you watch todays news? This is what happens when religions vie
for control of a country. If you wish to see this in America, fine by
me, I will let you have a theocracy. No skin of my nose.
>>
>> > why it is better to help others rather
>> >> than harm others, without being told to, then you may know where to
>> >> being discussing this.
>> >
>> >another preaching atheist. Where's dan fake? Yea, allan, I can read in
>here
>> >anytime about how charitable you are to others.
>>
>> You have no clue about me. Do go ahead and do what most do. I and
>> others enjoy reading what people write about me. i keep hoping that
>> someday they may get close.
>
>self-absorbed. Maybe one day you'll self-reflect as to why they dislike you
>so much.
I do not care. Do you really care what people who do not know you
think about you? If you do then I feel very sorry for you.
I care about what people who know me think.
>People respond to you in here based on what you write. Why would you expect
>anything less?
Yes, I never expected to be stalked by Catholics. Explain to me why I
should have?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I can realise why it is wrong to hurt others, why do you think you
>> >> >> need to be told it is wrong?
>> >>
>> >> I see this was lost on you. From your responses I know why.
>> >
>> >Ah yes. Alan Ferris who fancies himself as being on a heroes quest to
>slay
>> >his imaginary dragons.
>>
>> ROFLMAO! When you stop projecting you might learn something.
>>
>> But I do love it when christians start trying to tell me about myself.
>
>Does that mean you hate it when non-christians tell you about yourself?
No, but I do not come across that very often. That in itself opens
new thoughts.
>> Really shows how they have not even got a clue about themselves.
>
><Pot calling the kettle black> So no christian in here has a clue about you?
>BUT here you claim to know oh so much about them. What was that you were
>saying about projecting? You complain when you feel someone else is
>projecting onto you and then you turn right around and hypoctically project
>onto whole *society*. What was that you were saying about *you* following
>the Golden Rule, and working within *any* society?
No, I do not claim to know them. But anybody who thinks they know
another person simply from a newsgroup knows so little about people
that they truly cannot be looking at themselves. We cannot really
study others until we have studied ourselves, we need to know how we
influence our view of others.
So tell me Tony.
What is it I do that so upsets you?
What is it that makes you think you know me?
Why is it you are always willing to make false statements about what
you think I do?
How does this strengthen or weaken you beliefs?
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:3mt040tggltbjeu1s...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>> >For example, atheists don't
>> >believe in natural rights.
>>
>> So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
>> irrelevant to the law.
>
>natural law has more to do with morals than law. How does one determine a
>law is immoral?
One doesn't, if one is thinking about the law, because morality is
irrelevant to law.
If one wants to determine whether a law is illegal, then there is a
process for that.
>>>The question is whether those *positive*
>>>laws
>> >are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
>> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
>>
>> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>Unjust laws have traditionally been defined by weighing the relavence to
>natural law theory.
I was not aware that natural law theory is a comparison of a currently
contested law to past legal precedent and other current law. Thank you
for clearing that up.
>> > That brings
>> >in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an athiest
>do
>> >this?
>>
>> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
>>
>> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>
>In a secular world civil rights are subjective.
Only if one misspells "theocracy" and employs the natural law fallacy.
> In ethics subjectivism is
>referred to as non-cognative to anti-realism.
And civil rights, which are well-defined, legal concepts put into
action in a secular republic, do not fall into this category.
>They aren't objective.
Sure they are. They are the measure against which civil law is weighed
as to its constitutionality or legality.
>So the
>problem comes down to defining what is a civil right and that by necessaity
>must be arbitrated, arbitrary.
If by your misuse of "arbitrated," you actually meant decided in a
court of law, then I agree.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
>>
>> >life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have no
>> >proclivity to ethical realism
>>
>> You wish.
>
>hmmm. I don't think understand what's involved here. I've never met an
>athiest who was a moral realist/objectivist.
"Moral realist" is an oxymoron and has a vague, if no, meaning.
>> Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral
>> relativism (sorry for the redundancy).
>> Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
>> irrelevant to the law.
>
>I'm a moral realist. Moral relativism is subjectivism applied
>intersubjectively to a social group.
A law may coincide with your subjective, personal interpretation of
morality. That does not make the law subjective, capricious, or based
on your subjective, personal morality.
>> >and therefore rights are arbitrated,
>>
>> Not arbitrated, but____________.
>
>finish it _________
Why?
>>
>> >e.g. in
>> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held
>in a
>> >constitution.
>>
>> No.
>> EG, suffrage.
>>
>> >> Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
>> >> treated as EQUALS before the law.
>> >
>> >Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold....all men are created
>> >equal...." is not restricted to citizens. But that's not what I was
>asking.
>> >Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among themselves
>are
>> >not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and
>> >subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
>>
>> Very Orwellian.
>
>No. Very Jeffersonian.
Orwellian, as you have conflated the subordination to apply to the
people, not just to the rights themselves.
> Your right to liberty doesn't trump someone else's
>right to life. Your right to happiness doesn't trump someone else's right to
>liberty.
Rock-paper-scissors.
Applies to the rights, not to the people's access to those rights, and
that is what is being argued in the SSM debate.
Non-sequitur.
>> >Marriage contracts are obviously between at
>> >least two people.
>>
>> ONLY two people.
>
>ONLY because that is how the law is written. BUT is this law an UNjust law?
I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. If the multiple partner
marriage crowd wants to make their case to have such marriages, then
they may petition the government for redress of their grievances, just
as the SSM crowd is petitioning right now for redress of their
grievance at some couples being denied marriage based upon gender
discrimination.
You've gone to great lengths to make your point, but it's neither
different nor original. Your basic argument is that SSM should not be
allowed because it will lead to polygamy, for no other reason than you
say so. You can gussy it up all you want with all the references in
the world to whatever other issues you may dream up, but it's no more
legally compelling than conflating he issue of gender with the other
slippery slopes of consanguinity and inter-species marriages.
>I'm getting from you that a law retricting gays from marriage would be an
>unjust law.
You're just now getting that?????
>If that is so then why would it be? I think this is are the
>cruxes of this debate.
A man can marry a woman, but a woman may not.
A woman may marry a man, but a man may not.
Why? Because of their gender.
This is sex discrimination, and it is illegal.
That is the legal crux of the SSM debate.
Gender, not number, not consanguinity, no what-ifs about marrying the
cat, the Buick, or a tree ("informed consent" issues).
>If any consenting adults are retricted, by law, from marriage are there any
>rights being violated?
Yes.
>Of what business is it of the gorvernment to restrict
>any type of marriage - gay, polygamist, etc - if the marriage contract is
>between adults?
In the issue of SSM, there has been to date not ONE compelling legal
reason presented to deny SSM. Denial of SSM has failed in 4 top state
courts. The anti-SSM crowd is desperate to win, so in 3 of those
states, they have done an end-run around the courts, going to the
legislature to re-write the laws.
Again, your argument with accompanying disingenuous question is the
same slippery slope presented hundreds of times. "The sky will be
falling" is not sufficient legal reason to deny SSM.
And, in the case of SSM, the pro-SSM folks are simply asking that the
law be enforced, as written, in those jurisdictions with the caveat
"two persons" in the legal definition of marriage. In other
jurisdictions, the pro-SSM crowd is maintaining that the assortment of
genitalia among the couple is insufficient legal reason to deny SSM,
because modern anti-sex discrimination laws trump older legal
definitions of marriage.
>> >> >Tell this to the mormons. By limiting to two, the government is
>> >automaticly
>> >> >restricting mormans' religious freedom.
>> >>
>> >> No. Mormon men are free to have as many wives as they wish. That's
>> >> part of their religion, and no one has ever said that they are not
>> >> allowed to cohabitate (in the eyes of the law) or marry within their
>> >> church, as their church allows.
>> >>
>> >> In the eyes of the law, though, it's one spouse at a time.
>> >> Number!= gender.
>> >> The above strawman is irrelevant.
>> >
>> >But that could also be held to be unconstitutional.
>>
>> I suppose it could be. But that is a different argument, and one in
>> which I have no interest in pursuing, as thae issue of number of
>> partners is irrelevant to the issue of the gender/sex of the two
>> partners.
>
>It depends on how marriage is defined, traditionally or arbitrarily.
Fallacy of bifurcation.
Whose tradition? Yours? Not a compelling legal reason.
The issue of NUMBER is irrelevant to the issue of GENDER.
Number ..... gender........ two different, unrelated issues, and
irrelevant to each other.
>Look,
>anytime a social issue developes that would change cultural norms it is
>reasonable to expect a cultural tug-of-war.
Same thing was said in 1954 and 1967.
I'm not seeing anything new or original.
>To not expect this is naive.
I suppose it is naive to expect that with all the nonconsensual
horrors vested upon humanity by itself, people have nothing better to
gripe about than how two consenting adults choose to love and express
that love.
>Labeling something bigotted in an attempt to shut down debate is label
>something else politically correct.
Fallacy of bifurcation, again.
I don't do politically correct.
I am an equal opportunity kind of guy.
I hate bigotry just as much as I loathe that intellectually
irresponsible, post-modernist, semiotical "all ideas are valid" crap.
Furthermore, labeling something as bigoted is not an attempt to
silence anything. It's simply pointing out that the bigot's white
sheet fits quite nicely and really highlights the flame from the
burning cross.
Your transparent faux attempt at politeness aside, I have done nothing
to shut down any argument presented by any bigot or anyone veiling
their prejudice with well-worded, yet fallacious, verbiage. I have, in
fact, been more than tolerant by facilitating response and answer in
this forum and other fora. I am doing NOTHING to prevent the free
exchange of ideas. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are wrong. They
are also, quite simply, honked off that I would dare to speak up and
not mindlessly and silently nod my head, as it were, as if to concede.
I am exercising exactly the same freedom of speech as anyone else.
Those who don't like it and would attempt to have me shut up by
accusing me of intolerance or attempting to stifle discussion by
calling things as they are-- tough crackers.
>I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing in your 20's.
No.
>I'm in my now
>late 40's. I've seen slippery slopes come to fruition.
Yeahyeahyeah, fallacy of anecdotal (non-)evidence.
So you've seen a couple of slippery slopes? Big whoo.
You have no evidence of *this* particular slippery slope coming to
fruition. What you do have is examples to the contrary from the 12+
countries where SSM is legal.
So, when your imagination is weighed against the reality, reality
wins.
>If the culture
>changes the diffintion of marriage from....
>
>1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband
>or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the
>institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and
>legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family -- see
>MONOGAMY, POLYGAMY
>
>...to that of a contractual arriangment between adults, I don't see how
>polygamy, in the long run, can be exclued. Why should it be?
Don't know, don't care. Let the polygamy crowd make their case in
court, just as the pro-SSM folks are doing right now.
The issue of number is still irrelevant to the issue of gender.
Separate, different, irrelevant.
Oh, and just FYI, your alleged dictionary definition sans cite above
is anachronistic, from an older edition of Webster's. You might want
to update that.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English marriage, from Anglo-French, from marier to
marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as
husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the
same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
<same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons :
WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a
marriage
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
So, just as society changes, the language and laws change, to reflect
those societal changes. And the resistance to change is always the
same; it's only the groups being denigrated that change.
>I'm interested in what, if any, negative long-term changes might bring. An
>argument in point:
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
And of course, there could not be any POSITIVE changes, because in
your imagination, it must be negative.
You'll find the phrase "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to ....
opinions" at the core of the definition for a certain word beginning
with B.
>
>>
>> >They can make the exact
>> >argument that gays are making.
>>
>> But that is a different argument, and one in which I have no interest
>> in pursuing, as thae issue of number of partners is irrelevant to the
>> issue of the gender/sex of the two partners.
>
>Sorry, but I think that's naive or intellectually lazy to not speculate
>about potential cultural consequences
Why should I waste my time indulging you in your imaginary, already
disproved slippery slope?
An intellectually industrious person would seek out examples of your
slippery slope happening in countries where SSM is legal. And there
are none.
A naive person would assume that his/her imaginings will happen,
despite evidence from reality to the contrary.
>> >> >Marriage is more than contract.
>> >>
>> >> Not in the eyes of the law.
>> >> You know, the same law that guarantees your right to view your
>> >> marriage any way you wish.
>> >
>> >Then why put forth civil unions? Why have different tax rate for those
>who
>> >marry?
>>
>> The pro-SSM argument is not for civil unions, hence the M is SSM.
>> The ability to file a joint tax return is one of 1000+ rights and
>> priveleges conferred by marriage.
>
>And why is that?
Equality before the law demands that those rights be recognized.
>Why are those given to married couples?
I will pick one example.
"Next of kin status."
The NoKS grants legal recognition in many areas: right of
survivorship, exemption from inheritance taxation, right to make
medical decisions and health-care decisions for a partner in the event
of catastrophic illness or injury, clears the way for legal adoption
of the partner's children or grants rights of guardianship in the
event of no formal adoption, etc.
The NKoS status is granted in one of 3 ways: marriage, being
biological offspring, or adoption.
Marriage trumps the other two.
If you are willing to throw out all of the 1000+ rights conferred by a
$50 marriage license, restructure the legal means of declaring primacy
of interest in one's chosen adult partner/person, and make everyone
pay the thousands in legal fees to confer and secure those rights
(currently unattainable through any other legal means), then you might
be on to something. Until then, a $50 marriage license conferring
those 1000+ rights should be available to all, regardless of the
gender of the partners.
>Why are we given
>tax exemptions for the number of kids we have? The reasons for those are
>social/political and not constitutional law.
So? Having children is not a requirement for civil marriage.
>> >> >Civil unions could allow from more than TWO people.
>> >>
>> >> This is not the case in the one state where CU's are permitted.
>> >>
>> >> >Question: If you have to gays who are also first cousins, should they
>be
>> >> >prevented, by law, from marriage?
>> >>
>> >> Depends on the consanguinity laws in that jurisdiction.
>> >> But since it was good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis............
>> >
>> >
>> >She was also a minor.
>>
>> Ah, but were Myra and Jerry in violation of non-sonsanguinity
>> restrictions?
>> You are arguing from both sides of the fence here, said fence dividing
>> consanguinity and AOC.
>
>
>
>>
>> >Point was, though. there is no practical reason to
>> >restict gays from marrying their first cousins.
>>
>> No one is arguing for a change in the consanguinity restriction.
>> The is sue being argued is restriction based on the gender/sex of the
>> couple.
>> The consanguinity issue is irrelevant to the issue of gender.
>
>It is relevant to a slippery slope legislation.
It is very relevant, in the minds of the anti-SSM crowd, with their
slippery slope legislation, yes.
>You have no logical reason
>to restrict consanguinity in gay marriages if you allow gay marriages.
Sure there is. It's the same reasons for consanguinity restrictions in
opposite sex marriages -- the legal conundrum for inheritance rights,
clear and unambiguous defining of legal relation between two people.
>
>>
>> >There is, however, a
>> >practical biological reason for resticting marriage between hetro
>cousins.
>> >But if you allow this marriage for gays and not hetros then rights are
>not
>> >held equally any more.
>>
>> Only you are suggesting this, not anyone arguing pro-SSM.
>> The pro-SSM argument is concerned with the gender/sex of the couple.
>> Any other issues are irrelevant.
>
>Not in the long run.
Yes, forever and ever. Your imaginary musings are not compelling legal
reason to deny SSM.
>Any philosophical change you bring to the table will
>have unforeseen logical conclusion down the road. It's naive to ignore this.
It is naive to ignore the demonstrable reality that NONE of what you
are suggesting has happened in countries where SSM is allowed.
It is intellectually irresponsible to ignore the reality of the
benefits of any legally recognized marriage to the couple and to
society.
It is grossly prejudicial to assume that SSM will only be a negative,
especially when one has ignored, in one's intellectual
irresponsibility, the benefits to society of recognizing any marriage.
Something about pointing a finger and having three pointing back at
one comes to mind, but I digress.
>> >Intuitively, one feels something else is involved in
>> >marriage than simply civil unions.
So, we have your intuition and your imaginary slippery slope
VS
reality.
And the winner is...........
>> An ethnocentric, culturally inspired, non-legal feeling, at best.
>
>No, at worst. Why should tradtionalism and cultrualism such a dirty word?
Your erroneous, calumnious inference aside, appeal to tradition is a
logical fallacy known as argumentum ad antiquitatem. It is not a
compelling legal reason to deny SSM. And, if it were, women would not
be voting, and slavery would still be around.
As for culturalism: culture is a living, growing, evolving entity,
like language, law, and social norms, all of which are reflections of
the culture. Gay and lesbian *people* are a part of this culture, too.
The will of any alleged majority has no bearing on anyone's civil
rights, not even gay people's.
>> >> >What reason would there be for doing so?
>> >>
>> >> Ask the two gay cousins. Don't be surprised if they tell you to MYOB,
>> >> since any such marriage would not affect you in any way whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> >If not prevented, then the *equal* rights, as you put forth, of
>> >> >heterosexuals would be violated if they are prevented. That is gays
>would
>> >> >now have marrying privileges not available to hetros.
>> >>
>> >> No one is asking that the consanguinity rules to be changed.
>> >
>> >You waffle between rights and rules.
>>
>> Just following your lead.
>
>Is that what you do, follow the liberal lead without self-reflection to
>consequences down the way?
You haven't struck me as a liberal thus far. Has your position
changed?
HINT: following your lead = imitating your style of debate, minus the
logical fallacies, conflation of terms, slippery slope, and animus.
>> >> This is a fallacious argument made up by those who have no compelling
>> >> legal reason to deny same-sex marriage.
>> >
>> >
>> >It's a philosophical perspective.
>>
>> And not a compelling legal argument.
>
>The same is true for polygamy and gay cousins marrying. What compelling
>legal argument is there, aside from culture?
Asked and answered.
And, just to remind you, NUMBER is still irrelevant to GNDER,
regardless of what you may imagine.
Looks like I was right about the aspersion. Shame on you for trying to
shut me down in mid-argument, after you whined about me allegedly
doing the same to you.
Tissue, anyone?
>> >> >If the
>> >> >parents give the consent the state is by an large powerless. If the
>> >parents
>> >> >give consent and the 30 year old has no prior history of abuse, how
>could
>> >> >the state intervene?
>> >>
>> >> The hypothetical parents' consent is irrelevant, if the person in
>> >> question has reached AOC. IIRC, only the parents have legal standing
>> >> to question the "child's" legal competency to enter into a marriage,
>> >> and the parents approve, they probably wouldn't make such a challenge.
>> >
>> >Parental consent is required in the Texas.
>>
>> That's because the AOC in Texas is 18.
>> Texas is not relevant to your own hypothetical example.
Well, well, well............ being confronted with facts is not a good
reason to run away.......
>> >> > ("Child" in quotes because we are
>> >> >> talking about someone who is of the age of consent. I used the word
>> >> >> child because this person has not reached the age of majority, and
>is
>> >> >> still considered a minor in some respects.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a question for the legal arena, however, and not subject to
>> >> >> your subjective opinion or, in this case, animus. IOW, it's none of
>> >> >> your business, since it affects you in NO WAY whatsoever.
>> >> >
>> >> >It affects my society. That makes it my business.
>> >>
>> >> It's my society too, Hoss. And I want SSM to be legal.
>> >
>> >With 39 states outlawing it, you would appear to be out voted.
>>
>> Civil rights, such as marriage, are not up to a majority vote.
>
>??? Yes they are if amended to the constitution would be made. It takes 38
>states to amend it. 39 have laws against gay marriage.
Since when does might make right? And so what?
>> And the beauty part for you: when MA allows SSM in May, no state which
>> opposes SSM will be required to perform them. They will be required to
>> recognize them, as they would any other legal marriage, though.
>
>Only if the issue comes before the Supreme Court and the "Defense of
>Marriage Act" is deemed un-constitutional. If that happens, expect a push to
>amend the Constitution.
Not a guarantee, by any means.
Thank you for admitting that the anti-SSM crowd has no legal reason to
deny SSM, and will, in theory, have to do an end-run around the law to
get their animus codifed into law.
>> >> Your simple imagining trounces no one's right to have their grievances
>> >> redressed in court. Nor does your imagining give YOU legal standing to
>> >> deny anyone's rights. You have to give a compelling legal argument to
>> >> show why SSM should be denied. And I hate to break it to you, but the
>> >> anti-SSM crowd has spent millions of dollars on the best legal
>> >> representation to contest this in courts. And all 4 times the issue
>> >> has come before state supreme courts, the anti-SSM crowd has lost,
>> >> 100% of the time.
>> >> It also affects you only in some imaginary, intangible way.
>> >> SSM will NOT invalidate anyone else's marriage.
>> >> SSM is about gender, not any other slippery slope crap you can
>> >> fabricate.
>> >> SSM is a legal issue, not subject to the flights of fancy of any
>> >> religion.
>> >
>> >There's a chance that Constitution will be amended.
>>
>> Neither eventual nor, dare I say, realistic.
>
>never say never.
I didn't.
It would naive of me to ignore that some people's hatred knows no
limits.
>> >And Rights spelled out
>> >in them are only that, by atheism
>>
>> No, by law.
>> Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
>> irrelevant to the law.
>
>Atheism is no irrelevant moral philsophy and law is not irrelevant to
>morality. I'm amazed at how little so many athiests in these groups know
>about ethical philosophies and those philosophies' philosophical
>conclusions.
I'm amazed at how presumptuous so many theists are in these groups,
that they would presume to tell others how they believe or don't.
I'm also amazed at how badly some people on the groups have to contort
and twist to rationalize their own prejudices, in an attempt to make
that prejudice sound socially acceptable. Just boggles my mind daily.
At any rate, the "philosophical conclusion" of atheism is that the
atheist lacks belief in deities. Anything beyond that is something
else, not related to atheism. Atheism is not required to be a
nihilist, a relativist, a post-modernist, or an adherent to any other
actual philosophy.
The law in a secular, pluralistic republic is neither moral nor
immoral. Those are philosophical, not legal, considerations.
The law is consistent or inconsistent, just or unjust, or any two-term
combination of the four.
The proposed "I Hate Homos" Bigot Amendment would be inconsistent and
unjust, FYI.
The fact that secular law might coincide with your subjective
interpretation of your chosen religious beliefs is irrelevant to any
legal issue.
It might make you feel better about yourself, but that doesn't
indicate that your religious tradition invented those laws.
Let's face it: "murder is against the law" was around a good 3000
years before Christianity co-opted it (cf Code of Hamurabi), as was
just about every other tenet of Christianity. Nothing new or original
there. Any resemblance to secular law is coincidental.
>> >and, therefoe, not something intrinsic to
>> >the human person.
>>
>> Not according to the laws of the United States, which laws respect no
>> religion, not even the Deism to which you are alluding.
>
>Wrong. Those laws are suppose to favor no religion but the *are* to respect
>all religions.
Let me rephrase:
Not according to the laws of the United States, which laws respect no
establishment of religion, not even the Deism to which you allude.
>Separation of church and state does not mean separation from culture and
>religion.
And if you can come up with a compelling, secular, legal reason to
deny SSM in this great secular, non-theocratic republic of ours, then
by all means, let's hear it.
Until then, the anti-SSM folks will just have to gnash your teeth,
keep chanting your slippery slope and "BUt my God said so" stuff, and
go to plan B: do an end-run around the law to legislate a personal,
subjective, not culture-wide morality into law.
What you seem to forget in your veiled "my culture/my society"
diatribe, is that YOU and those who believe as you do religiously and
politically, are NOT the sum total, end-all-be-all of society. Gay
people are members of society, too. So are our friends and families.
>> >Personnally, I not hopped up about the SSM argument for a civil point of
>> >view. Philosophically, though, I want to know if there is a slippery
>slope
>> >issue. I personnally think there is, only, because I've lived long enough
>to
>> >see these slopes in action.
>>
>> The slippery slope issue is that allowing SSM will somehow lead to
>> multiple partner marriages, changing of consanguinity requirements,
>> and all manner of imaginary horrors fabricated by the anti-SSM crowd.
>> This is done to obfuscate the real issue: what is the compelling legal
>> reason to deny SSM. The anti-SSM crowd has no reason other than
>> personal animus, which is not a compelling legal reason.
>
>
>Slippery slope are real possibilities here.
Reality does not bear that out.
maf 1029
>
>"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
>news:bti440t3c3e717u7c...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:58:49 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >But being an atheist, you have no
>> >proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated, e.g.
>in
>> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are held
>in a
>> >constitution.
>>
>> Your inability to understand just laws without faith does not mean you
>> can Mark Johnson (Project) them onto others.
>>
>> I do hold certain rights to be inherent.
>
>Really, atheist?
Revealing.
>And just how and when did these rights become
>endowed/inherent onto you? Were these rights inherited to you at conception?
Same time you got yours, why do you ask?
>
> I know I and many follow
>> what is often known as the golden rule. This is not based on faith,
>> but on simple morality gained by thinking about it, rather than being
>> told it.
>
>you were a masochist.
Jealous much?
P-K-B.
maf 1029
I knew this one anti-gay bigot who picketed a wedding between two men.
He had the most articulate, well-written slogans on his signs, too.
maf 1029
Let's see:
your imaginary slippery slope
VS
reality
Hmm, whichever should I believe?
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:40:20 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> >news:3mt040tggltbjeu1s...@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
> >> >For example, atheists don't
> >> >believe in natural rights.
> >>
> >> So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
> >> irrelevant to the law.
> >
> >natural law has more to do with morals than law. How does one determine a
> >law is immoral?
>
> One doesn't, if one is thinking about the law, because morality is
> irrelevant to law.
>
> If one wants to determine whether a law is illegal, then there is a
> process for that.
Constitutionality aside, how can a law be illegal?
> >>>The question is whether those *positive*
> >>>laws
> >> >are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
>
> >> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
> >>
> >> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>
> >Unjust laws have traditionally been defined by weighing the relavence to
> >natural law theory.
>
> I was not aware that natural law theory is a comparison of a currently
> contested law to past legal precedent and other current law. Thank you
> for clearing that up.
>
> >> > That brings
> >> >in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an
athiest
> >do
> >> >this?
> >>
> >> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
> >>
> >> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
> >
> >In a secular world civil rights are subjective.
>
> Only if one misspells "theocracy" and employs the natural law fallacy.
You are confusing naturalistic fallacy with natural law theory.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/phl347/lectures/lec24.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0259/1_94/61638916/p1/article.jhtml
>
> > In ethics subjectivism is
> >referred to as non-cognative to anti-realism.
>
> And civil rights, which are well-defined, legal concepts put into
> action in a secular republic, do not fall into this category.
and why is that? It doesn't because the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution are based on moral realism, which is something atheists deny.
>
> >They aren't objective.
>
> Sure they are. They are the measure against which civil law is weighed
> as to its constitutionality or legality.
are they arbitrated (arbitrary) or stating something inherent to *human*
rights?
>
> >So the
> >problem comes down to defining what is a civil right and that by
necessaity
> >must be arbitrated, arbitrary.
>
> If by your misuse of "arbitrated," you actually meant decided in a
> court of law, then I agree.
Jim Crow laws were court of law and lasted nearly a century.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
> >>
> >> >life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have
no
> >> >proclivity to ethical realism
> >>
> >> You wish.
> >
> >hmmm. I don't think understand what's involved here. I've never met an
> >athiest who was a moral realist/objectivist.
>
> "Moral realist" is an oxymoron and has a vague, if no, meaning.
Take your pick:
http://info1.nwmissouri.edu/~rfield/274guide/274overview1.html#ethical%20relativism
>
> >> Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral
> >> relativism (sorry for the redundancy).
> >> Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
> >> irrelevant to the law.
> >
> >I'm a moral realist. Moral relativism is subjectivism applied
> >intersubjectively to a social group.
>
> A law may coincide with your subjective, personal interpretation of
> morality. That does not make the law subjective, capricious, or based
> on your subjective, personal morality.
Postitive law is subjective - intersubjective.
>
> >> >and therefore rights are arbitrated,
> >>
> >> Not arbitrated, but____________.
> >
> >finish it _________
>
> Why?
why not?
> >>
> >> >e.g. in
> >> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are
held
> >in a
> >> >constitution.
> >>
> >> No.
> >> EG, suffrage.
> >>
> >> >> Yes, especially in a republic where ALL citizens are to be held and
> >> >> treated as EQUALS before the law.
> >> >
> >> >Even non-citizen have due process. "We hold....all men are created
> >> >equal...." is not restricted to citizens. But that's not what I was
> >asking.
> >> >Although people hold rights equally, the rights in and among
themselves
> >are
> >> >not equal. There is an objective ordering where one is dependent and
> >> >subordinate to the other. That subordination is also interpersonal.
> >>
> >> Very Orwellian.
> >
> >No. Very Jeffersonian.
>
> Orwellian, as you have conflated the subordination to apply to the
> people, not just to the rights themselves.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --
Wrong, Jeffersonian.
>
> > Your right to liberty doesn't trump someone else's
> >right to life. Your right to happiness doesn't trump someone else's right
to
> >liberty.
>
> Rock-paper-scissors.
>
> Applies to the rights, not to the people's access to those rights, and
> that is what is being argued in the SSM debate.
Debatable: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/D/Defense-of-marriage-act.htm
you're waffling
>
> >> >Marriage contracts are obviously between at
> >> >least two people.
> >>
> >> ONLY two people.
> >
> >ONLY because that is how the law is written. BUT is this law an UNjust
law?
>
> I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. If the multiple partner
> marriage crowd wants to make their case to have such marriages, then
> they may petition the government for redress of their grievances, just
> as the SSM crowd is petitioning right now for redress of their
> grievance at some couples being denied marriage based upon gender
> discrimination.
> You've gone to great lengths to make your point, but it's neither
> different nor original. Your basic argument is that SSM should not be
> allowed because it will lead to polygamy, for no other reason than you
> say so. You can gussy it up all you want with all the references in
> the world to whatever other issues you may dream up, but it's no more
> legally compelling than conflating he issue of gender with the other
> slippery slopes of consanguinity and inter-species marriages.
Exactly. You don't know and you don't care about any social cultural
consequences that could arise.You are of the "Me" generation and you want
what you want. And anyone contrary to your ego wants is Orwellian from you
POV.
>
>
> >I'm getting from you that a law retricting gays from marriage would be an
> >unjust law.
>
> You're just now getting that?????
I've gotten that all along. Just stating the obvious. How do you determine
it to be unjust, though?
>
> >If that is so then why would it be? I think this is are the
> >cruxes of this debate.
>
> A man can marry a woman, but a woman may not.
> A woman may marry a man, but a man may not.
> Why? Because of their gender.
> This is sex discrimination, and it is illegal.
> That is the legal crux of the SSM debate.
> Gender, not number, not consanguinity, no what-ifs about marrying the
> cat, the Buick, or a tree ("informed consent" issues).
How about marrying your first cousin? Why should you be prevented from doing
so? It's a legitimate question that you ignore. What legal compelling reason
is there for restricting gays from marrying their cousins? Because we don't
let hetros due to the risks involved with children? Those risks don't apply
to gays. But if gays then have the right to marry cousins, then hetros
rights are being subverted by this very argument.
These are question that need to be discussed and that you, admittedly, quite
frankly, don't care about. When we start down this road defining legal
marriage rights and whose intitled to them an end point needs to be defined
clearly.
>
> >If any consenting adults are retricted, by law, from marriage are there
any
> >rights being violated?
>
> Yes.
That opened the door to poligamy, and mothers marrying sons if all are
adults.
>
> >Of what business is it of the gorvernment to restrict
> >any type of marriage - gay, polygamist, etc - if the marriage contract is
> >between adults?
>
> In the issue of SSM, there has been to date not ONE compelling legal
> reason presented to deny SSM. Denial of SSM has failed in 4 top state
> courts. The anti-SSM crowd is desperate to win, so in 3 of those
> states, they have done an end-run around the courts, going to the
> legislature to re-write the laws.
> Again, your argument with accompanying disingenuous question is the
> same slippery slope presented hundreds of times. "The sky will be
> falling" is not sufficient legal reason to deny SSM.
How do you know if you don't care? I particularly don't care if gays marry
in the secular world but I do care if marriage isn't clearly defined. At
this point in time of Constitutional wording, if constitutionality is
brought in to subvert states' laws on restricting marriages then the door is
open to ANYONE and any number of marriage partners wanting to marry. I want
some idea what potential social consequence could come about, something you
said you frankly don't care about.
>
> And, in the case of SSM, the pro-SSM folks are simply asking that the
> law be enforced, as written, in those jurisdictions with the caveat
> "two persons" in the legal definition of marriage.
That would take an Amendment to the Constitution to define that caveat to
"two persons". Without it the door is wide open.
sorry but I'm snipping the rest without reading. Not because I don't want to
but I don't have the time at present. If you want to keep this up, please
shorten the replies.
Scott
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
you first have to frankly care if their might be one to know if it's
imaginary or not.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
I thought gay marriages were illigal.
> He had the most articulate, well-written slogans on his signs, too.
Care to share?
Scott
Scott
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040210/2081de97e1ef43a8ef93b25e8849d9df_1.html
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12152003/utah/120148.asp
The argument that striking down the Texas sodomy law could lead to the
legalization of other prohibited acts was voiced by a dissenter, Justice
Antonin Scalia. He wrote that state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage,
prostitution, adultery, adult incest and masturbation could fall next.
Salt Lake City lawyer Brian Barnard, who is backing Green's appeal
through the Utah Civil Rights & Liberties Foundation, said the circumstances
in the Utah case differ from those in the Texas case, but agrees that the
Lawrence decision will prompt attempts to overturn laws prohibiting certain
acts between consenting adults.
He already has filed suit on behalf of a client who wants to strike down
the state's anti-sodomy law and a statute that prohibits unmarried Utahns
from having sex.
"We're taking the next logical step," Barnard said. "Another logical
step says polygamy should be allowed."
He added: "The logical progression of the Lawrence decision is it will
keep government out of everyone's bedroom."
maf 1029
>
>
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040210/2081de97e1ef43a8ef93b25e8849d9df_1.html
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12152003/utah/120148.asp
>The argument that striking down the Texas sodomy law could lead to the
>legalization of other prohibited acts was voiced by a dissenter, Justice
>Antonin Scalia. He wrote that state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage,
>prostitution, adultery, adult incest and masturbation could fall next.
Slippery slope and animus. As a supreme court justice, Scalia should
know better.
> Salt Lake City lawyer Brian Barnard, who is backing Green's appeal
>through the Utah Civil Rights & Liberties Foundation, said the circumstances
>in the Utah case differ from those in the Texas case, but agrees that the
>Lawrence decision will prompt attempts to overturn laws prohibiting certain
>acts between consenting adults.
> He already has filed suit on behalf of a client who wants to strike down
>the state's anti-sodomy law and a statute that prohibits unmarried Utahns
>from having sex.
> "We're taking the next logical step," Barnard said. "Another logical
>step says polygamy should be allowed."
> He added: "The logical progression of the Lawrence decision is it will
>keep government out of everyone's bedroom."
Slippery slope. Don't law schools teach anymore that logical fallacies
and fevered imaginings are not sufficient legal reason to deny civil
rights?
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0209/p01s04-usju.html
Justice Scalia told his fellow justices they had just opened Pandora's box.
Not only same-sex marriage and the ban on gays in the military, but laws
against bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, and
obscenity are all based on moral choices, he said, and all are now open to
challenge on constitutional grounds. "This effectively decrees the end of
all morals legislation," Scalia declared
A Debate on Marriage, And More, Now Looms
By David Von Drehle, wasingtonpost.com June 27, 2003
"It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war,"
Scalia declared, taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the
bench. He savaged the passing statement by the majority that the sodomy law
decision had nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. "Do not believe it,"
he [Justice Scalia] warned.
His slippery slope prediction was on the spot with regard to gay marriage.
Do you disagree? What's next?
Scott
bam
Look like a lot of old leches to me.
Real losers.
BAM
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:peo1c.26255$qG4....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
maf 1029
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0209/p01s04-usju.html
>Justice Scalia told his fellow justices they had just opened Pandora's box.
>Not only same-sex marriage and the ban on gays in the military, but laws
>against bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, and
>obscenity are all based on moral choices, he said, and all are now open to
>challenge on constitutional grounds. "This effectively decrees the end of
>all morals legislation," Scalia declared
Slippery slope and animus. As a supreme court justice, Scalia should
know better. Don't law schools teach anymore that logical fallacies
and fevered imaginings are not sufficient legal reason to deny civil
rights?
>http://www.gaypasg.org/Press%20Clippings/June%202003/A%20Debate%20on%20Marriage,%20And%20More,%20Now%20Looms.htm
>
>A Debate on Marriage, And More, Now Looms
>
>By David Von Drehle, wasingtonpost.com June 27, 2003
>
>"It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war,"
>Scalia declared, taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the
>bench. He savaged the passing statement by the majority that the sodomy law
>decision had nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. "Do not believe it,"
>he [Justice Scalia] warned.
>
>His slippery slope prediction was on the spot with regard to gay marriage.
Slippery slope and animus. As a supreme court justice, Scalia should
know better. Don't law schools teach anymore that logical fallacies
and fevered imaginings are not sufficient legal reason to deny civil
rights?
>Do you disagree?
If there were stated reasoning to comment upon........
>What's next?
Gay marriage will lead to the outlawing of peanut butter and jelly
sandwiches, which will in turn lead to the collapse of the dykes
surrounding the IJ in the Netherlands.
<eye roll>
maf 1029
Not "care," but ___________
>> VS
>>
>> reality
>>
>> Hmm, whichever should I believe?
>>
No snotty comment?
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:9qsb40hg5p30guo5h...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:03:10 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bti440t3c3e717u7c...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:58:49 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >But being an atheist, you have no
>> >> >proclivity to ethical realism and therefore rights are arbitrated,
>e.g.
>> >in
>> >> >principle, there are no unjust laws restricting rights if they are
>held
>> >in a
>> >> >constitution.
>> >>
>> >> Your inability to understand just laws without faith does not mean you
>> >> can Mark Johnson (Project) them onto others.
>> >>
>> >> I do hold certain rights to be inherent.
>> >
>> >Really, atheist?
>>
>> Revealing.
>
>But not in the way you assume.....
No assumption needed.
>> >And just how and when did these rights become
>> >endowed/inherent onto you? Were these rights inherited to you at
>conception?
>>
>> Same time you got yours, why do you ask?
>
>....atheist don't believe in *inherent* rights.
How cutely presumptuous of you.
>It's odd that an atheist
>would state a belief in them. Inherent rights are natual rights.
In your opinion.
>I got my
>inherent human rights when I became a human life,
At your birth.
>just like you and Allan,
>and not a subjective person.
My being a person is not subjective.
>If you believe in an inherent right to human
>life then it follows that that would apply to the human life of a fetus.
Non-sequitur.
<snip posting of words I already know>
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:96tb401m26ct6joe8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:07:55 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >> This whole SSM debate isn't about marriage. It's about how profoundly
>> >> some people hate others.
>> >
>> >I had a gay secretary who had a marriage ceremony.
>>
>> I knew this one anti-gay bigot who picketed a wedding between two men.
>
>I thought gay marriages were illigal.
1. You thought wrong (cf state of MA, most countries in the EU, and
Brazil).
2. I did not say "gay marriage." I said "a wedding between two gay
men." Two different words, two different meanings.
FYI, there are plenty of churches who will perform a religious
ceremony to consecrate such a wedding.
Oh, and you have just made a rather revealing slip with this post.
>> He had the most articulate, well-written slogans on his signs, too.
>
>Care to share?
Sure.
Circa 1967, my father knew this guy who used to claim that a lot of
his friends were black.
Circa 1920, my paternal grandmother knew this couple in a small town
in PA who were refused a marriage license because they were Catholic.
Oh, and I was accosted by the Girl Scouts at my bank today. They were
selling Girl Scout cookies. I bought a box of thin mints. I am always
happy to support an organization which does not discriminate on the
grounds of race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
Ok, I'm done sharing now. Did you enjoy?
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:3mkb4057ofr6th32f...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:40:20 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>> >news:3mt040tggltbjeu1s...@4ax.com...
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >For example, atheists don't
>> >> >believe in natural rights.
>> >>
>> >> So? Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
>> >> irrelevant to the law.
>> >
>> >natural law has more to do with morals than law. How does one determine a
>> >law is immoral?
>>
>> One doesn't, if one is thinking about the law, because morality is
>> irrelevant to law.
>>
>> If one wants to determine whether a law is illegal, then there is a
>> process for that.
>
>
>Constitutionality aside, how can a law be illegal?
If it conflicts with already established law with no ruling having
been made on the constitutionality of the previous law, if the law
denies due process, if the law violates another civil right, etc.
>> >>>The question is whether those *positive*
>> >>>laws
>> >> >are just or unjust. How does one determine if a law is unjust?
>>
>> >> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
>> >>
>> >> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>>
>> >Unjust laws have traditionally been defined by weighing the relavence to
>> >natural law theory.
>>
>> I was not aware that natural law theory is a comparison of a currently
>> contested law to past legal precedent and other current law. Thank you
>> for clearing that up.
>>
>> >> > That brings
>> >> >in Natural Law theory to measure postive law against. How does an
>athiest
>> >do
>> >> >this?
>> >>
>> >> 1. Is there a compelling legal reason to deny a civil right?
>> >>
>> >> 2. Does this denial conflict with other established law?
>> >
>> >In a secular world civil rights are subjective.
>>
>> Only if one misspells "theocracy" and employs the natural law fallacy.
>
>
>You are confusing naturalistic fallacy with natural law theory.
No.
>http://www.utexas.edu/courses/phl347/lectures/lec24.html
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
>
>http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0259/1_94/61638916/p1/article.jhtml
So what are your claims for today about what I believe?
Oh, here, let me grab a snack first, because I don't want to miss
this. <eye roll>
>> > In ethics subjectivism is
>> >referred to as non-cognative to anti-realism.
>>
>> And civil rights, which are well-defined, legal concepts put into
>> action in a secular republic, do not fall into this category.
>
>and why is that? It doesn't because the Declaration of Independence and the
>Constitution are based on moral realism, which is something atheists deny.
In your unfounded opinion, based on a gross misunderstanding of what
atheism is.
>> >They aren't objective.
>>
>> Sure they are. They are the measure against which civil law is weighed
>> as to its constitutionality or legality.
>
>
>are they arbitrated (arbitrary) or stating something inherent to *human*
>rights?
Which answer will end this? You pick that one and discuss amongst
yourself.
>> >So the
>> >problem comes down to defining what is a civil right and that by
>necessaity
>> >must be arbitrated, arbitrary.
>>
>> If by your misuse of "arbitrated," you actually meant decided in a
>> court of law, then I agree.
>
>Jim Crow laws were court of law and lasted nearly a century.
This sentence does not parse in English.
If by your misuse of "arbitrated' you actually meant decided in a
court of law, then I agree.
HINT: arbitration and legal ruling are two different concepts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Do you understand the objective ordering to Rights {sic}?
>> >>
>> >> >life => liberty=>pursuit of happiness. But being an atheist, you have
>no
>> >> >proclivity to ethical realism
>> >>
>> >> You wish.
>> >
>> >hmmm. I don't think understand what's involved here. I've never met an
>> >athiest who was a moral realist/objectivist.
>>
>> "Moral realist" is an oxymoron and has a vague, if no, meaning.
>
>Take your pick:
>http://info1.nwmissouri.edu/~rfield/274guide/274overview1.html#ethical%20relativism
Then let's pick: morality is relative and subjective, as to time and
culture. Morality is irrelevant to the law. This fact of definition
provides only cognitive dissonance WRT meaning.
>> >> Of course, being a theist, you have every reason to hold fast to moral
>> >> relativism (sorry for the redundancy).
>> >> Atheism is simply lack of belief in deities. That's it. Atheism is
>> >> irrelevant to the law.
>> >
>> >I'm a moral realist. Moral relativism is subjectivism applied
>> >intersubjectively to a social group.
>>
>> A law may coincide with your subjective, personal interpretation of
>> morality. That does not make the law subjective, capricious, or based
>> on your subjective, personal morality.
>
>Postitive law is subjective - intersubjective.
A law may coincide with your subjective, personal interpretation of
morality. That does not make the law subjective, capricious, or based
on your subjective, personal morality.
>> >> >and therefore rights are arbitrated,
>> >>
>> >> Not arbitrated, but____________.
>> >
>> >finish it _________
>>
>> Why?
>
>why not?
More to the point: why.... *can't* you?
Still Orwellian, as you have conflated the subordination to apply to
the people, not just to the rights themselves. The quote of the
Preamble proves my point. Thanks for providing it.
>> > Your right to liberty doesn't trump someone else's
>> >right to life. Your right to happiness doesn't trump someone else's right
>to
>> >liberty.
>>
>> Rock-paper-scissors.
>>
>> Applies to the rights, not to the people's access to those rights, and
>> that is what is being argued in the SSM debate.
>
>Debatable: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/D/Defense-of-marriage-act.htm
Yet not tenable.
Non-sequitur.
Your lack of comprehension is insufficient basis for an opinion,
anyway.
>> >> >Marriage contracts are obviously between at
>> >> >least two people.
>> >>
>> >> ONLY two people.
>> >
>> >ONLY because that is how the law is written. BUT is this law an UNjust
>law?
>>
>> I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. If the multiple partner
>> marriage crowd wants to make their case to have such marriages, then
>> they may petition the government for redress of their grievances, just
>> as the SSM crowd is petitioning right now for redress of their
>> grievance at some couples being denied marriage based upon gender
>> discrimination.
>> You've gone to great lengths to make your point, but it's neither
>> different nor original. Your basic argument is that SSM should not be
>> allowed because it will lead to polygamy, for no other reason than you
>> say so. You can gussy it up all you want with all the references in
>> the world to whatever other issues you may dream up, but it's no more
>> legally compelling than conflating he issue of gender with the other
>> slippery slopes of consanguinity and inter-species marriages.
>
>
>Exactly.
Thank you for admitting your animus and bigotry. Refreshingly honest
of you, might I add.
>You don't know and you don't care about any social cultural
>consequences that could arise.
Slippery slope, not born out by the REALITY of the examples of
countries where SSM is legal.
Will you be pulling your head out of *that orifice* anytime soon to
check out the REALITY?
How many times will I have to mention this?
Oh, wait: answer: as many times as you will willfully ignore it.
>You are of the "Me" generation
No.
>and you want
>what you want.
The duck is on the lawn.
>And anyone contrary to your ego wants is Orwellian from you
>POV.
No, just you. You're special.
>> >I'm getting from you that a law retricting gays from marriage would be an
>> >unjust law.
>>
>> You're just now getting that?????
>
>I've gotten that all along.
4 lines of text and your recent comprehension is "all along"?
>Just stating the obvious. How do you determine
>it to be unjust, though?
Asked and answered.
>> >If that is so then why would it be? I think this is are the
>> >cruxes of this debate.
>>
>> A man can marry a woman, but a woman may not.
>> A woman may marry a man, but a man may not.
>> Why? Because of their gender.
>> This is sex discrimination, and it is illegal.
>> That is the legal crux of the SSM debate.
>> Gender, not number, not consanguinity, no what-ifs about marrying the
>> cat, the Buick, or a tree ("informed consent" issues).
>
>How about marrying your first cousin?
My straight first cousin? No, thank you.
>Why should you be prevented from doing
>so?
Consanguinity restrictions, if applicable.
>It's a legitimate question that you ignore.
I have ignored NOTHING, even the most base and malicious crap from
you, in your flailing efforts to rationalize your animus against gays,
atheists, and people who support EQUAL rights for ALL in a secular,
pluralistic republic.
As for "legitimate question": when you ask one, I will let you know.
>What legal compelling reason
>is there for restricting gays from marrying their cousins?
What legal compelling reason
is there for restricting heteros from marrying their cousins?
HINT: what does marriage do for those who get married?
>Because we don't
>let hetros due to the risks involved with children? Those risks don't apply
>to gays. But if gays then have the right to marry cousins, then hetros
>rights are being subverted by this very argument.
Ah, so you can't come up with a compelling legal reason to deny SSM
based on gender (which is the issue at hand), so you trot out the
slippery slope canard of consanguinity (a different, separate, and
irrelevant issue). Why didn't you just say so?
How many times will I have to tell you that the irrelevant
consanguinity restrictions are not the issue? Will it be more times
than I have to remind you that the rest of your slippery slope
canard is not reflected in reality?
>These are question that need to be discussed and that you, admittedly, quite
>frankly, don't care about..
That's right, I don't care. Want to know why? Because I'm not you. You
are overly concerned with how consenting adults who aren't you are
conducting their lives. I am not. Does that make me a better person
than you? I hope so, but at the very least, it frees up A LOT of my
time, while you stay busy figuring out how to restrict others' rights,
because you wrinkle your nose at gay folks. Pathetic.
Now, once again and for the LAST TIME: if the "I wanna marry my first
cousin/mother/cat/multiple partners" crowd wants to make their case
before a court of law, then let them. I have no interest in a
currently imaginary scenario, dreamed up by you to appease and justify
your homophobia.
> When we start down this road defining legal
>marriage rights and whose intitled to them an end point needs to be defined
>clearly.
Yup. Just as it was for slavery, citizenship, denial of suffrage,
school integration, anti-miscegenation laws, etc.
>> >If any consenting adults are retricted, by law, from marriage are there
>any
>> >rights being violated?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>That opened the door to poligamy, and mothers marrying sons if all are
>adults.
If the courts say so, then yes. If the courts refuse to hear the case
for legal reasons, then no. Yet again, and for the last time, if you
want to marry your mother, then you and all the other oedipally
conflicted people out there may bring your own case before the courts.
Your oedipal fantasies have no bearing on the issue of gender, and are
IRRELEVANT.
If you would/could acknowledge reality, you would see, in the examples
of countries where SSM is allowed, that this oedipal fantasy of yours
is NOT happening. It's called reality.
Besides, courts of law are not required to speculate on anything,
least of all your imaginary and irrelevant scenarios.
>> >Of what business is it of the gorvernment to restrict
>> >any type of marriage - gay, polygamist, etc - if the marriage contract is
>> >between adults?
>>
>> In the issue of SSM, there has been to date not ONE compelling legal
>> reason presented to deny SSM. Denial of SSM has failed in 4 top state
>> courts. The anti-SSM crowd is desperate to win, so in 3 of those
>> states, they have done an end-run around the courts, going to the
>> legislature to re-write the laws.
>> Again, your argument with accompanying disingenuous question is the
>> same slippery slope presented hundreds of times. "The sky will be
>> falling" is not sufficient legal reason to deny SSM.
>
>How do you know if you don't care?
Because I thought it through, unlike you.
And now you'll come back with if I was thinking about it, then I must
care about it. And I'll have to remind you about how much you "care"
about your oedipal and incest fantasies. And then you'll say those
were just examples, and that I'm a bigot against bigotry. And then
I'll laugh at you and tell you that you don't have a clue. And then
you;'ll come back with "The sky is falling." And I'll have to remind
you that the duck is on the lawn.
>I particularly don't care if gays marry
>in the secular world
You don't? Well, gosh, you sure have spent an awful lot of effort and
time bitching about it here on Usenet, for something you supposedly
don't care about. I'd hate to speculate on how you'd react if you did
care.
>but I do care if marriage isn't clearly defined.
Oh, puh-LEEZE. Anyone reading for comprehension knows you mean
"defined to suit you, to exclude people of whom you don't approve."
Marriage is clearly defined in every jurisdiction I have read about.
You're just miffed that those definitions don't exclude gays and
lesbians, and now you trot out the old slippery slope canard of "SSM
will lead to people marrying their mothers, their Buicks, and their
cacti." Same old crap, different day. Already refuted, RIP, requiem
aeternam, etc,etc.
> At
>this point in time of Constitutional wording, if constitutionality is
>brought in to subvert states' laws on restricting marriages then the door is
>open to ANYONE and any number of marriage partners wanting to marry.
Piffle. Already refuted piffle, at that.
>I want
>some idea what potential social consequence could come about, something you
>said you frankly don't care about.
And do you see those alleged social consequences coming about in
countries with SSM? NO! Because it's all in your imagination.
>> And, in the case of SSM, the pro-SSM folks are simply asking that the
>> law be enforced, as written, in those jurisdictions with the caveat
>> "two persons" in the legal definition of marriage.
>
>That would take an Amendment to the Constitution to define that caveat to
>"two persons".
No, it wouldn't. The individual states have the right to regulate
marriage as each state sees fit. And, since the caveat is already
contained in several jurisdictions' definitions of marriage, your
point is redundant and ignorant.
>Without it the door is wide open.
Thanks for the input, Chicken Little. I'll go tell Henny Penny you're
too busy to come out and watch the sky fall.
>sorry but I'm snipping the rest without reading. Not because I don't want to
>but I don't have the time at present. If you want to keep this up, please
>shorten the replies.
Consider it done, O Self-Important One.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
and blind they are
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
it'd be incompatible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
> >It's odd that an atheist
> >would state a belief in them. Inherent rights are natual rights.
>
> In your opinion.
not just mine. read the link
> >I got my
> >inherent human rights when I became a human life,
>
> At your birth.
Subjective standard and, therefore, cannot be inherent.
There is only one objective standard for the beginning of human life,
conception. All others are subjective. If there is such a think as
*inherent* human rights then they, by natural necessity, must coninside with
the beginning of human life, not some subjective standard for personhood.
> >just like you and Allan,
> >and not a subjective person.
>
> My being a person is not subjective.
>
> >If you believe in an inherent right to human
> >life then it follows that that would apply to the human life of a fetus.
>
> Non-sequitur.
bull shit. a fetus is human life and pro-choice doesn't deny this. It is
human life without personhood statues.
Scott
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
sure did.
Circa 2004, I know a 4.0 gpa white man who can't get into medical school
because minorities and women get first dibs.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
one got the point across
maf 1029
Then you should take off your opaque-tinted glasses, pull your head
out of that orifice, and examine what is happening in reality, because
it sure ain't what you're wailing about.
Oh, what the hell..........
ya know --- it was people like you......... let's call them "The
Descendants of Jim Crow," just for fun........ who, circa 1954, said
the same sorts of things about school integration.
It was also the "Descendants of Jim Crow" who wept and wailed about
the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws circa 1967, saying the exact
same things: why can't blacks have their own marriages? Blacks can get
married-- just not to whites, and why should they? Blacks should have
their own separate marriages. Letting blacks and whites marry will
allow for all manner of evils, including marrying dogs and cats.
Blahblahblah. It didn't work then, it ain't working now.
The only change is the name of the group you're against.
None so blind indeed, hypocrite.
maf 1029
How cutely doubly presumptuous of you.
With some hypocrisy flavored sprinkles thrown on top.
>> >It's odd that an atheist
>> >would state a belief in them. Inherent rights are natual rights.
>>
>> In your opinion.
>
>not just mine. read the link
As I said, in your opinion.
maf 1029
Yes, I did, didn't I? So much so, that you had to snip it out so that
you wouldn't have to be embarrassed by it again. Must've hurt a lot.
maf 1029
Oh, my. I had no idea you were one of *those*. I sorely misestimated
you.
Oh, and I know a 3.5 gpa white male who got into all 7 medical schools
he applied to, circa 2003.
Care to share some more?
maf 1029
>> >I got my
>> >inherent human rights when I became a human life,
>>
>> At your birth.
>
>Subjective standard and, therefore, cannot be inherent.
The law is subjective? Maybe on your planet.
>There is only one objective standard for the beginning of human life,
>conception. All others are subjective.
In your subjective opinion, of course. Medical science and the law
disagree with you.
So, let's see:
the subjective, personalized, rationalized opinion of you
VS
the objective, quantifiable, observable methods of science and the
dispassionate, objective assessment of the law.......
Gosh, whichever shall I choose?
>If there is such a think as
>*inherent* human rights then they, by natural necessity, must coninside with
>the beginning of human life, not some subjective standard for personhood.
<yawn>
>> >just like you and Allan,
>> >and not a subjective person.
>>
>> My being a person is not subjective.
>>
>> >If you believe in an inherent right to human
>> >life then it follows that that would apply to the human life of a fetus.
>>
>> Non-sequitur.
>
>bull shit.
Oooohhh........ out of arguments so soon?
And yeah, your little diatribe was bullshit. Thank you for agreeing.
>a fetus is human life and pro-choice doesn't deny this. It is
>human life without personhood statues.
In your subjective opinion, of course.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
breaks your heart
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
No I did.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:41:47 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> >I got my
> >> >inherent human rights when I became a human life,
> >>
> >> At your birth.
> >
> >Subjective standard and, therefore, cannot be inherent.
>
> The law is subjective? Maybe on your planet.
Yet another atheist who doens't understand ethical philosophy. Atheists who
understand the philosophy involved hold to ethical subjectivism. For
example: that murder is wrong is subjective and not an objective fact. Go
over to a.a and ask for yourself.
>
> >There is only one objective standard for the beginning of human life,
> >conception. All others are subjective.
>
> In your subjective opinion, of course. Medical science and the law
> disagree with you.
biological fact.
http://lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html
The Continuum of Life
The facts above, along with the constancy of the time of gestation,
approximately 38 weeks, reasonably declare that the life of the new
individual human being begins with fertilization. Virtually every human
embryologist and every major textbook of Human Embryology states that
fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human
being.
The reason why this is true is the following:
from the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte, under
conditions we have come to understand and describe as normal, all subsequent
development to birth of a living newborn is a fait accompli. That is to say,
after that initial contact of spermatozoon and oocyte there is no subsequent
moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or
the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, a signal or trigger,
needed from the male in order to continue and complete development to birth.
Human development is a continuum in which so - called stages overlap and
blend one into another. Indeed, all of life is contained within a time
continuum. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of
fertilization, the reproductive event which is the essence of life.
>
> So, let's see:
>
> the subjective, personalized, rationalized opinion of you
>
> VS
>
> the objective, quantifiable, observable methods of science and the
> dispassionate, objective assessment of the law.......
>
> Gosh, whichever shall I choose?
>
> >If there is such a think as
> >*inherent* human rights then they, by natural necessity, must coninside
with
> >the beginning of human life, not some subjective standard for personhood.
>
> <yawn>
ohhhh yawn.
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:g2pe40ldb926iqbcq...@4ax.com...
>> >> >Care to share?
>> >>
>> >> Sure.
>> >> Circa 1967, my father knew this guy who used to claim that a lot of
>> >> his friends were black.
>> >>
>> >> Circa 1920, my paternal grandmother knew this couple in a small town
>> >> in PA who were refused a marriage license because they were Catholic.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and I was accosted by the Girl Scouts at my bank today. They were
>> >> selling Girl Scout cookies. I bought a box of thin mints. I am always
>> >> happy to support an organization which does not discriminate on the
>> >> grounds of race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I'm done sharing now. Did you enjoy?
>> >
>> >sure did.
>> >Circa 2004, I know a 4.0 gpa white man who can't get into medical school
>> >because minorities and women get first dibs.
>>
>> Oh, my. I had no idea you were one of *those*. I sorely misestimated
>> you.
>
>breaks your heart
in ways you'll never grasp, mon petit fromage.
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:0dpe40hnito18lqn6...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:41:47 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >I got my
>> >> >inherent human rights when I became a human life,
>> >>
>> >> At your birth.
>> >
>> >Subjective standard and, therefore, cannot be inherent.
>>
>> The law is subjective? Maybe on your planet.
>
>
>Yet another atheist who doens't understand ethical philosophy.
Yet another theist who can't read for comprehension.
>Atheists who
>understand the philosophy involved hold to ethical subjectivism.
Ethics are subjective too? Land-agoshens, who'd a knowed that!
>For
>example: that murder is wrong is subjective and not an objective fact. Go
>over to a.a and ask for yourself.
Care to provide a context for your latest rant?
"Murder is wrong" -- subjective and inconsistent within a subjective
morality {sic}; subjective and consistent within an ethical system;
objective fact in law.
Now why don't YOU run over to
alt.learntoreadwiththehelpofa-dictionary.
>> >There is only one objective standard for the beginning of human life,
>> >conception. All others are subjective.
>>
>> In your subjective opinion, of course. Medical science and the law
>> disagree with you.
>
>biological fact.
>http://lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html
This is not peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is emotional
claptrap.
Please provide a cite from the current peer-reviewed scientific
literature that proves your assertions above.
HINT: you have made two, both about medicine.
<snip emotional, non-scientific claptrap>
>> >If there is such a think as
>> >*inherent* human rights then they, by natural necessity, must coninside
>with
>> >the beginning of human life, not some subjective standard for personhood.
>>
>> <yawn>
>
>ohhhh yawn.
See, you're bored with your own crap. How do you expect others to
survive it?
maf 1029
Where? Shall I alert the media?
You didn't even fill in the blank.
Alan Ferris
>
>Yet another atheist who doens't understand ethical philosophy. Atheists who
>understand the philosophy involved hold to ethical subjectivism. For
>example: that murder is wrong is subjective and not an objective fact. Go
>over to a.a and ask for yourself.
Of course it is. You live in a country where some states murder
prison inmates and call it social justice.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:08:24 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> >news:0dpe40hnito18lqn6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:41:47 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >I got my
> >> >> >inherent human rights when I became a human life,
> >> >>
> >> >> At your birth.
> >> >
> >> >Subjective standard and, therefore, cannot be inherent.
> >>
> >> The law is subjective? Maybe on your planet.
> >
> >
> >Yet another atheist who doens't understand ethical philosophy.
>
> Yet another theist who can't read for comprehension.
>
> >Atheists who
> >understand the philosophy involved hold to ethical subjectivism.
>
> Ethics are subjective too? Land-agoshens, who'd a knowed that!
not you <I can play this false accusation game too>
>
> >For
> >example: that murder is wrong is subjective and not an objective fact. Go
> >over to a.a and ask for yourself.
>
> Care to provide a context for your latest rant?
So now I'm a ranter?
> "Murder is wrong" -- subjective and inconsistent within a subjective
> morality {sic}; subjective and consistent within an ethical system;
> objective fact in law.
Incorrect. It is a fact that murder is illegal; it is not a fact that it is
wrong (under ethical subjectivism). It is a fact that gay marriage is
illigal in most states. It is not a fact that gay marriages are wrong.....or
right (under subjectivism).
By your argument, if it's illigal than it's also an objective fact that it
is wrong = legalistic fallacy.
>
> Now why don't YOU run over to
> alt.learntoreadwiththehelpofa-dictionary.
>
> >> >There is only one objective standard for the beginning of human life,
> >> >conception. All others are subjective.
> >>
> >> In your subjective opinion, of course. Medical science and the law
> >> disagree with you.
> >
> >biological fact.
> >http://lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html
>
>
> This is not peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is emotional
> claptrap.
> Please provide a cite from the current peer-reviewed scientific
> literature that proves your assertions above.
> HINT: you have made two, both about medicine.
>
> <snip emotional, non-scientific claptrap>
You are a collection of live human cells. How many human cells does it take
to have human life? One.
The question in bioethics is when does this collection of human cells
equates to personhood status.
Nobody question wheather active cells are alive (viruses excluded).
>
>
> >> >If there is such a think as
> >> >*inherent* human rights then they, by natural necessity, must
coninside
> >with
> >> >the beginning of human life, not some subjective standard for
personhood.
> >>
> >> <yawn>
> >
> >ohhhh yawn.
>
> See, you're bored with your own crap. How do you expect others to
> survive it?
boorish. This is one thing you and Allan have in common.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
I'll break it somemore, in about 10 minutes I'm going to hang out the
weekend with some of those traditionalists (aka bigoted to you) boy scouts.
> mon petit fromage.
a look! a little cheese eater, "I surrender!!" I'll bet you're a rude french
waiter, too.
Scott
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:ks5f401brotfhtjtl...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:08:24 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>> >news:0dpe40hnito18lqn6...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:41:47 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >I got my
>> >> >> >inherent human rights when I became a human life,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At your birth.
>> >> >
>> >> >Subjective standard and, therefore, cannot be inherent.
>> >>
>> >> The law is subjective? Maybe on your planet.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yet another atheist who doens't understand ethical philosophy.
>>
>> Yet another theist who can't read for comprehension.
>>
>> >Atheists who
>> >understand the philosophy involved hold to ethical subjectivism.
>>
>> Ethics are subjective too? Land-agoshens, who'd a knowed that!
>
>not you <I can play this false accusation game too>
Thank your for admitting that I did know that ethics are subjective.
>> >For
>> >example: that murder is wrong is subjective and not an objective fact. Go
>> >over to a.a and ask for yourself.
>>
>> Care to provide a context for your latest rant?
>
>So now I'm a ranter?
If the diatribe fits.........
>> "Murder is wrong" -- subjective and inconsistent within a subjective
>> morality {sic}; subjective and consistent within an ethical system;
>> objective fact in law.
>
>Incorrect. It is a fact that murder is illegal; it is not a fact that it is
>wrong (under ethical subjectivism).
That's what I just said. And now you claim it's incorrect? Please make
up your mind sometime soon.
>It is a fact that gay marriage is
>illigal in most states.
So?
>It is not a fact that gay marriages are wrong.....or
>right (under subjectivism).
Not what you have previously asserted.
> By your argument, if it's illigal than it's also an objective fact that it
>is wrong = legalistic fallacy.
Never said that.
>> Now why don't YOU run over to
>> alt.learntoreadwiththehelpofa-dictionary.
>>
>> >> >There is only one objective standard for the beginning of human life,
>> >> >conception. All others are subjective.
>> >>
>> >> In your subjective opinion, of course. Medical science and the law
>> >> disagree with you.
>> >
>> >biological fact.
>> >http://lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html
>>
>>
>> This is not peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is emotional
>> claptrap.
>> Please provide a cite from the current peer-reviewed scientific
>> literature that proves your assertions above.
>> HINT: you have made two, both about medicine.
>>
>> <snip emotional, non-scientific claptrap>
>
>
>You are a collection of live human cells. How many human cells does it take
>to have human life? One.
Your definition of "life" is subjective and capricious.
>The question in bioethics is when does this collection of human cells
>equates to personhood status.
Legally, at birth, and that is what we need to know for the purposes
of a legal discussion.
>Nobody question wheather active cells are alive (viruses excluded).
Oh, so you're selective about which cells may be killed off, due to
your own prejudice. Thanks for sharing.
>>
>> >> >If there is such a think as
>> >> >*inherent* human rights then they, by natural necessity, must
>coninside
>> >with
>> >> >the beginning of human life, not some subjective standard for
>personhood.
>> >>
>> >> <yawn>
>> >
>> >ohhhh yawn.
>>
>> See, you're bored with your own crap. How do you expect others to
>> survive it?
>
>boorish. This is one thing you and Allan have in common.
Pedantic, this is one thing you have in common with Mark Johnson.
Bigoted, this is one thing you have in common with Tony Miller, et al.
Arrogant, this is one thing you have in common with Paris Hilton.
maf 1029
Your egregiously wrong inference aside, bully for you.
Oh, and just so you can be clear, which traditions would you like to
keep? So far we have:
1. White males are more equal than other people
2. Marriage is for hets only
3. Private organizations sucking off the public tit are allowed to
discriminate
So, which others would you like to keep?
>> mon petit fromage.
>
>a look! a little cheese eater, "I surrender!!" I'll bet you're a rude french
>waiter, too.
Gosh, with that wonderful sense of humor, I bet *no one* thinks you're
boorish at all. Project much, garçon?
>
Alan Ferris
ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:05:16 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
>>news:v587401n61jtqgfis...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:07:55 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> This whole SSM debate isn't about marriage. It's about how profoundly
>>> >> some people hate others.
>>> >
>>> >I had a gay secretary who had a marriage ceremony.
>>>
>>> And the marriages round the world carried on without falling apart as
>>> the Church seems to believe they will.
>>
>>your hyperbole is as boarish as ever
>
>Let's see:
>
>your imaginary slippery slope
>
>VS
>
>reality
>
>Hmm, whichever should I believe?
They do struggle with that one :) They try to claim one thing,
ignoring that reality shows something else.
But then, if they believed in reality they would have to change many
of their moral attitudes.
Alan Ferris
>> Same time you got yours, why do you ask?
>
>....atheist don't believe in *inherent* rights. It's odd that an atheist
>would state a belief in them. Inherent rights are natual rights. I got my
>inherent human rights when I became a human life, just like you and Allan,
>and not a subjective person. If you believe in an inherent right to human
>life then it follows that that would apply to the human life of a fetus.
I do love the way you constantly tell atheists what they must believe.
Do you tell any other groups of people what they must believe?
I am sure you will not whine if I start telling you what Catholics
believe.
Alan Ferris
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:96tb401m26ct6joe8...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:07:55 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >> This whole SSM debate isn't about marriage. It's about how profoundly
>> >> some people hate others.
>> >
>> >I had a gay secretary who had a marriage ceremony.
>>
>> I knew this one anti-gay bigot who picketed a wedding between two men.
>
>I thought gay marriages were illigal.
Not everywhere no.
Alan Ferris
>
>
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040210/2081de97e1ef43a8ef93b25e8849d9df_1.html
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Dec/12152003/utah/120148.asp
>The argument that striking down the Texas sodomy law could lead to the
>legalization of other prohibited acts was voiced by a dissenter, Justice
>Antonin Scalia. He wrote that state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage,
>prostitution, adultery, adult incest and masturbation could fall next.
Same claim used to prevent inter-racial, inter religious marriages.
Why is it that these bastions have not fallen in those countries that
did allow same sex marriage?
Oh yeah, because people like to use the same old straw-man no matter
how tatty and worn he looks.
Come on folks, after a 1000 years you would think somebody would have
a new argument.
Scott
Your so philosophically impared. When you take a philosophical position
(atheism in your case) inevitable conclusions follow (it doesn't follow that
you believe in angels but no god):
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/taner_edis/review_of_martin.html
Inherent Human Rights is moral objectivism/realism, moral facts:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/martin_review.shtml
Note that whereas Adams is arguing from moral objectivism to the divine
command theory, an atheist could argue from atheism to the denial of moral
realism. That is, an atheist might agree that the dual objective and social
nature of moral obligation requires a divine obligator, but since there is
no such obligator, moral objectivism is false. Such an atheist would be a
kind of error theorist: the atheist would agree that the concept of moral
obligation is irreducibly social, but deny that there exists any moral
obligator suitable to the task of underpinning objective moral
obligations.[6]
While his definition of moral realism is acceptable, his definition of
objective morality leaves much to be desired. Indeed, one searches his book
in vain for a rigorous definition of "objective morality." Martin offers
multiple definitions of objective morality (p. 36), but his preferred
definition seems to be the belief "there are moral facts" (p. 28).
Unfortunately, this definition does not really capture the intended meaning,
for it fails to exclude subjectivism. As Geoffrey Sayre-McCord explains,
"subjectivism about value gives perfect sense to there being a fact of the
matter (you might even say 'an objective fact of the matter') about what is
good or valuable."[11] What distinguishes moral objectivism from
subjectivism is not a belief in moral facts, but the belief that "the
appropriate truth-conditions [of moral claims] make no reference to anyone's
subjective states or to the capacities, conventions, or practices of any
group or people."[12]
Semantical worries aside, what reasons does Martin offer to believe that
moral objectivism is true? Although Martin does address arguments against an
atheistic objective morality, he offers little in favor of moral objectivism
over and against subjectivism. He hints at one argument for moral realism in
his Introduction, where he states, "Ordinary language and common sense
assume that morality is objective" (p. 12). However, he neither formulates
this as an argument for moral realism nor defends it against well-known
criticisms.[13] Indeed, it appears that Martin largely takes the truth of
moral realism for granted. In his defense of Ideal Observer Theory, he
states that it is "attractive" in part because it "allows for moral facts
[and] excludes ethical relativism" (p. 51). But allowing moral facts and
excluding ethical relativism is attractive in a metaethical theory only if
one has a prior reason to believe there are moral facts. As far as I can
tell, Martin does not provide such a reason in his book.
Concluding Remarks
Far too many naturalists neglect moral arguments for God's existence.
Atheism, Morality, and Meaning is a welcome counterexample to this trend,
not only because Michael Martin challenges moral arguments for theism
head-on, but because he does so as a moral realist. Unfortunately, his book
is not comprehensive; there are some fairly significant gaps in his
discussion of moral realism and of objections to atheistic morality.
Moreover, many readers will find his defense of the Ideal Observer Theory
counterintuitive and unconvincing. Nevertheless, this book would make a
useful addition to the library of anyone interested in the relationship
between atheism and morality.[20]
maf 1029
>definition of
>objective morality
No such thing. Morality is subjective to the individual and relative
to time and place (culture).
Just because you believe in sky pixies does not mean that everyone
else has to.
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:949s409nba621a7ch...@4ax.com...
><roll eyes>
>
>can you not follow a thread?
Yup. And I just shredded your argument, once again.
Why can't *you* follow along?
>Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are inherent.
So?
>That
>is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral realism.
Yeah, and?
> So why
>don't you try lecturing him on what exactly that means for an atheist.
It means he still doesn't believe in god(s).
Got anything else?
>I don't believe you will do that because I've come to think you don't have
>the integrity to correct or lecture another atheist.
Then your telepathy must be broken, because I have done both. In fact,
I did both lecture and correct Alan today on another matter.
Only I wasn't snotty like you.
>IOW how is inherent human rights (i.e. ethical realism) compatible with
>atheism?
By virtue of being human, human beings are entitled to be treated with
respect and are entitled to certain rights. This follows from an
ethical perspective that harming others (eg, denying rights to others)
is a no-no.
Of course, you don't have neither the integrity to admit that morality
is subjective to culture nor the brains to know how ethics differ from
morality.
You sure as heck don't have the compassion to admit that atheists are
just as moral and ethical as theists.
What you do have is the hubris to judge others when you don't
understand the subject matter.
>By his saying rights are inherent,
Yes
>Ferris acknowledges moral
>realism/objectivism.
No.
>You agree with him?
Yes.
>Yes/No and why.
Because the duck's butt is cold from sitting on the lawn too long.
>Or are you now going to attempt a change in the definition of inherent human
>rights?
No, that would be your job.
>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
>In "Is Morality a Matter of Taste?"
Yes. Morality is subjective to the culture.
Ethics are a different story.
NEXT!!!!
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:20:16 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> >news:949s409nba621a7ch...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:46:05 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >definition of
> >> >objective morality
> >>
> >> No such thing. Morality is subjective to the individual and relative
> >> to time and place (culture).
> >>
> >> Just because you believe in sky pixies does not mean that everyone
> >> else has to.
> >
> ><roll eyes>
> >
> >can you not follow a thread?
>
> Yup. And I just shredded your argument, once again.
> Why can't *you* follow along?
>
>
> >Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are inherent.
>
> So?
Inherent: belonging to the nature of a thing. nature is objective. I see you
snipped out the definition on inherent.
>
> >That
> >is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral realism.
>
> Yeah, and?
??? =>
>
> > So why
> >don't you try lecturing him on what exactly that means for an atheist.
>
> It means he still doesn't believe in god(s).
> Got anything else?
Yeah, and?
>
> >I don't believe you will do that because I've come to think you don't
have
> >the integrity to correct or lecture another atheist.
>
> Then your telepathy must be broken, because I have done both. In fact,
> I did both lecture and correct Alan today on another matter.
> Only I wasn't snotty like you.
and your not being snotty?
>
> >IOW how is inherent human rights (i.e. ethical realism) compatible with
> >atheism?
>
> By virtue of being human, human beings are entitled to be treated with
> respect and are entitled to certain rights.
which is the exact samething as saying Rights are natural to the human
specie.....objective.
This follows from an
> ethical perspective that harming others (eg, denying rights to others)
> is a no-no.
Is that a fact???
> Of course, you don't have neither the integrity to admit that morality
> is subjective to culture nor the brains to know how ethics differ from
> morality.
> You sure as heck don't have the compassion to admit that atheists are
> just as moral and ethical as theists.
Bull shit. I stated just the opposite in another thread about a month ago on
debating ethics. If I believe in moral realism, it necessarily follows that
I must also believe that atheists are also moral. What differs is arguments
on the nature of morality.
> What you do have is the hubris to judge others when you don't
> understand the subject matter.
yea sure whatever you say.
>
> >By his saying rights are inherent,
>
> Yes
>
> >Ferris acknowledges moral
> >realism/objectivism.
>
> No.
Yes. That he is ignorant of such doesn't change the matter.
???=>
With your above "No" you contridicted yourself here from your statement up
above where I flagged it with the "???=>"
Scott: >>Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are
inherent.
Maf1029: >So?
Scott: >>That is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral
realism.
Maf1029: > Yeah, and?
Above you said "yeah" but down here you say "No" he is not.
>
> >You agree with him?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Yes/No and why.
>
> Because the duck's butt is cold from sitting on the lawn too long.
Did you put your finger up its ass to find out?
>
> >Or are you now going to attempt a change in the definition of inherent
human
> >rights?
>
> No, that would be your job.
I see you snipped my webster definition of "inherent". The same one for the
term I'm using.
>
>
> >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
> >In "Is Morality a Matter of Taste?"
>
> Yes. Morality is subjective to the culture.
> Ethics are a different story.
"Ethics, the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used
interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this
study;" -- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy Second Edition.
Care to keep trying to bull shit your way?
>
> NEXT!!!!
Scott
Alan Ferris
>
>"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
>news:l8tq40do00m3thern...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:00:53 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Same time you got yours, why do you ask?
>> >
>> >....atheist don't believe in *inherent* rights. It's odd that an atheist
>> >would state a belief in them. Inherent rights are natual rights. I got my
>> >inherent human rights when I became a human life, just like you and
>Allan,
>> >and not a subjective person. If you believe in an inherent right to human
>> >life then it follows that that would apply to the human life of a fetus.
>>
>> I do love the way you constantly tell atheists what they must believe.
>>
>> Do you tell any other groups of people what they must believe?
>>
>> I am sure you will not whine if I start telling you what Catholics
>> believe.
>
>Your so philosophically impared.
Yet more false judgement.....what was it your faith says about
this....oh yeah, that arcrcatholics do not have to follow gods
teaching.
Nice quotes, Can you now think for yourself? Of is this why you
chose to follow religion?
maf 1029
>> >Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are inherent.
>>
>> So?
>
>Inherent: belonging to the nature of a thing. nature is objective.
Spurious leap, and non-sequitur.
>I see you
>snipped out the definition on inherent.
I already knew what it meant. You did not.
>
>>
>> >That
>> >is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral realism.
>>
>> Yeah, and?
>
>??? =>
If you can't say what you mean..........
>>
>> > So why
>> >don't you try lecturing him on what exactly that means for an atheist.
>>
>> It means he still doesn't believe in god(s).
>> Got anything else?
>
>Yeah, and?
So, you don't have anything else. Thanks for the admission.
>> >I don't believe you will do that because I've come to think you don't
>have
>> >the integrity to correct or lecture another atheist.
>>
>> Then your telepathy must be broken, because I have done both. In fact,
>> I did both lecture and correct Alan today on another matter.
>> Only I wasn't snotty like you.
>
>and your not being snotty?
Actually, no. I'm being gruff.
That's INHERENT to my NATURE.
>> >IOW how is inherent human rights (i.e. ethical realism) compatible with
>> >atheism?
>>
>> By virtue of being human, human beings are entitled to be treated with
>> respect and are entitled to certain rights.
>
>which is the exact samething as saying Rights are natural to the human
>specie.....objective.
Your paraphrase is wrong. Please re-read and aim for comprehension.
>> This follows from an
>> ethical perspective that harming others (eg, denying rights to others)
>> is a no-no.
>
>Is that a fact???
The ethical perspective is, yes, O Snotty One.
>> Of course, you don't have neither the integrity to admit that morality
>> is subjective to culture nor the brains to know how ethics differ from
>> morality.
>> You sure as heck don't have the compassion to admit that atheists are
>> just as moral and ethical as theists.
>
>Bull shit. I stated just the opposite in another thread about a month ago on
>debating ethics.
So, you're arguing both sides of the fence, just as you have accused
others of doing. Thank you for that admission too, O Hypocritical One.
>f I believe in moral realism, it necessarily follows that
>I must also believe that atheists are also moral.
Which you have asserted you do not believe.
>hat differs is arguments
>on the nature of morality.
Morality is subjective and relative to culture.
>> What you do have is the hubris to judge others when you don't
>> understand the subject matter.
>
>yea sure whatever you say.
Actually, it's what you say that proves the point.
>>
>> >By his saying rights are inherent,
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> >Ferris acknowledges moral
>> >realism/objectivism.
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes. That he is ignorant of such doesn't change the matter.
And your ignorance proves nothing.
>???=>
>With your above "No" you contridicted yourself here from your statement up
>above where I flagged it with the "???=>"
Your ignorance proves nothing.
>Scott: >>Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are
>inherent.
>Maf1029: >So?
>Scott: >>That is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral
>realism.
>Maf1029: > Yeah, and?
>
>Above you said "yeah" but down here you say "No" he is not.
1. Please spell my screen name right.
2. You have still shown no relationship or contradiction between
atheism and your alleged "moral realism."
3. I have proven that moral realism is at best an oxymoron, as you are
using the term.
Got anything else?
>> >You agree with him?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >Yes/No and why.
>>
>> Because the duck's butt is cold from sitting on the lawn too long.
>
>Did you put your finger up its ass to find out?
No, your tongue was used.
>>
>> >Or are you now going to attempt a change in the definition of inherent
>human
>> >rights?
>>
>> No, that would be your job.
>
>I see you snipped my webster definition of "inherent". The same one for the
>term I'm using.
I know what it means.
If you need to remind yourself, then please print it out and hang it
beside your monitor.
>>
>>
>> >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral2.html
>> >In "Is Morality a Matter of Taste?"
>>
>> Yes. Morality is subjective to the culture.
>> Ethics are a different story.
>
>"Ethics, the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used
>interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this
>study;" -- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy Second Edition.
>
Ethics and morality -- two different words, two different meanings.
Care to keep trying to bull shit your way? Or will you be continuing
your mindless cut and paste?
Morality is relative to culture.
NEXT!!!!
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
<I thought you'd step in that one> From the philosophical perspective of
ethical subjectivism morals are opinions not facts. Facts are objective.
>
>
> >> Of course, you don't have neither the integrity to admit that morality
> >> is subjective to culture nor the brains to know how ethics differ from
> >> morality.
> >> You sure as heck don't have the compassion to admit that atheists are
> >> just as moral and ethical as theists.
> >
> >Bull shit. I stated just the opposite in another thread about a month ago
on
> >debating ethics.
>
> So, you're arguing both sides of the fence, just as you have accused
> others of doing. Thank you for that admission too, O Hypocritical One.
Your saying so doesn't make it so. Go find the quote of me saying atheists
aren't as moral as theists. I know for a fact that you won't be able to find
it.
>
> >f I believe in moral realism, it necessarily follows that
> >I must also believe that atheists are also moral.
>
> Which you have asserted you do not believe.
again, wheres the quote???
>
>
> >hat differs is arguments
> >on the nature of morality.
>
> Morality is subjective and relative to culture.
http://info1.nwmissouri.edu/~rfield/274guide/274overview1.html#ethical%20relativism
Ethical Relativism
But what if there are no common moral values? What if our moral beliefs are
neither right nor wrong, but are simply "opinions" with no more objective
validity than such matters of individual preference as whether someone likes
butter or sour cream on their potato? The position that makes this claim is
commonly known as "ethical relativism." If the ethical relativists are
right, then there are no common standards of moral judgment, and the
ethicist, who would try to define such standards, is working in vain.
Individual Relativism
The Situation: A man abducts you and your family for the purposes of his
own sadistic enjoyment. He takes you and your family to a secluded farm
house, and tortures your family members for five days before they finally
die of the severity of their injuries. You miraculously escape just before
he is about to do the same to you.
The Implications of Relativism: So long as the assailant in this case does
not believe he has done anything wrong, he has indeed done nothing wrong.
You have no basis to complain about his actions, even if he acted with full
knowledge that you and your family objected to his actions, and that society
views such actions as grossly immoral. Although you might wish to avenge
his actions by harming him, if you do so your actions are no more
praiseworthy (or blameworthy) than his. You may appeal to the law, but no
court would be justified on a moral basis to convict or imprison the
assailant. If this is done, the actions of the court are no more
praiseworthy (or blameworthy) than those of the assailant. In fact, a legal
system which would condemn the actions of the assailant would be no better
on moral grounds than one that allowed such actions, or even one that would
reward the assailant for his actions by paying him $3 million from public
funds.
Cultural Relativism
The Situation: There is a country, Xenophobia, that contains two distinct
cultural groups: the majoritarians and the minoritarians. The majoritarians
make up 90% of the population, the minoritarians the remaining 10%. There
is a long history of suspicion and hatred in majoritarian culture against
the minoritarians. According to majoritarian cultural history, the
majoritarians are a culturally superior race that were the original
inhabitants of Xenophobia, and they therefore see minoritarians as inferior
and usurpers of their native lands. You are a minoritarian. The fragile
truce between the majoritarians and minoritarians disintegrates over a
murder case in which a minoritarian is charged with the assassination of a
prominent majoritarian politician. There is a quick move in the legislature
of Xenophobia to round up all minoritarians and place them in internment
camps and to suspend judicial procedures in all cases where minoritarians
are charged with crimes. The bill is quickly approved, and you and your
family are interned. Your brother was charged with a robbery some years
ago, and because the repressive law against minoritarians is retroactive,
the commander of the camp takes your brother to the firing range where he is
executed by firing squad.
The Implications of Relativism: So long as the actions taken by the
majoritarians are consistent with their cultural beliefs, there is nothing
wrong with their actions. You have no moral basis upon which to complain
about their actions, even if the majoritarians understand that world opinion
condemns their actions. You and other minoritarians might wish the world
community (e.g., the United Nations) to place economic sanctions against the
majoritarians, or even intervene militarily, but if it did, these actions
against the majoritarians would be no more praiseworthy (or blameworthy)
than those of the majoritarians. Alternatively, you and other minoritarians
might believe that you are justified in taking up arms against the
majoritarians, if you can manage it. But an armed revolt against the
majoritarians would not be just or right in any significant moral sense.
Morally speaking, such an action would be no more meritorious than the
repressive actions of the majoritarians to which you react.
If you find these implications objectionable then you cannot accept ethical
relativism.
>
> >> What you do have is the hubris to judge others when you don't
> >> understand the subject matter.
> >
> >yea sure whatever you say.
>
> Actually, it's what you say that proves the point.
Your understanding of ethical philosophy is lacking IMO.
>
> >>
> >> >By his saying rights are inherent,
> >>
> >> Yes
> >>
> >> >Ferris acknowledges moral
> >> >realism/objectivism.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Yes. That he is ignorant of such doesn't change the matter.
>
> And your ignorance proves nothing.
yea sure whatever you say.
>
> >???=>
> >With your above "No" you contridicted yourself here from your statement
up
> >above where I flagged it with the "???=>"
>
> Your ignorance proves nothing.
>
> >Scott: >>Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are
> >inherent.
> >Maf1029: >So?
> >Scott: >>That is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral
> >realism.
> >Maf1029: > Yeah, and?
> >
> >Above you said "yeah" but down here you say "No" he is not.
>
> 1. Please spell my screen name right.
> 2. You have still shown no relationship or contradiction between
> atheism and your alleged "moral realism."
> 3. I have proven that moral realism is at best an oxymoron, as you are
> using the term.
You've shown no such thing because you don't know what is ment by moral
realism. You don't know what you're going on about
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/AS%20Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/philosophyofreligionintroduction.htm
Realism (sometimes called Naïve Realism) - The notion that behind the
physical realm there are 'certainties' which are unaffected by our
experience or perception of them. For example, realists generally believe
you can have secure knowledge about the world i.e. When looking at an object
one could make the claim with a large degree of certainty that, "It is
red!". Most Christians are realists in that they believe God exists as a
separate being to humanity and has revealed moral truths to us in the Bible,
which we are to follow. Both Plato and Immanuel Kant are realists.
Non-Realism (sometimes called Anti-Realism) - The belief that there are no
'absolutes' in the universe outside our own perception (which logically
leads to relativism and subjectivism). Non-realists believe that our
knowledge is affected by our own perceptions i.e. we think the way we do
largely as a result of our social and cultural influences. In terms of
epistemology non-realists would often allow someone to make the claim "It is
red!" and another person to say, "It is yellow" despite looking at the same
object. They would do this because they would claim that each person validly
perceives the same object in different ways because they are having
different experiences of it (i.e. they may argue that one person is
colour-blind). Non-realists could accuse realists of being imperialist or
dictatorial in their attitudes and would argue that people live their lives
on the basis of what seems right to them and is agreed by society at the
time. In terms of religious belief Christian non-realists would argue that
the word 'God' is not a reference to some Supreme Being in the heavens but a
literary term we use to describe the 'Sum Of Our Highest Ideals'. Both
Ludwig Feurbach and Don Cupitt are non-realists.
>
> Got anything else?
atheism = materialism - The view that everything that actually exists is
material, or physical. Many philosophers and scientists now use the terms
`material' and `physical' interchangeably (for a version of physicalism
distinct from materialism, see physicalism). Characterized in this way, as a
doctrine about what exists, materialism is an ontological, or a
metaphysical, view; it is not just an epistemological view about how we know
or just a semantic view about the meaning of terms.
IOW's for atheists, only physical thinks are real. Morals (human rights)
aren't physical.
humm. should we take the definition used by The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy or should we take your word given that you don't understand the
different implications of ethical philosophies. Ethical Realism implies that
morals are universal across cultural lines. From this POV morals are akin to
mathamatics. They are to be discovered. In Ethical Relaltivism morals are
codified mores having no truth-value.
>
> Morality is relative to culture.
> NEXT!!!!
About a month ago I had some pissed atheists who took offense to being
referred to as relativists and they knew alot more about ethical philosophy
they you.
maf 1029
I knew you'd misread that one.
Read it again.
I did not say that ethics or your made-up ethical subjectivism
(whatever that may mean to you) was a fact.
I said the perspective was a fact.
You lose, again.
>> >> Of course, you don't have neither the integrity to admit that morality
>> >> is subjective to culture nor the brains to know how ethics differ from
>> >> morality.
>> >> You sure as heck don't have the compassion to admit that atheists are
>> >> just as moral and ethical as theists.
>> >
>> >Bull shit. I stated just the opposite in another thread about a month ago
>on
>> >debating ethics.
>>
>> So, you're arguing both sides of the fence, just as you have accused
>> others of doing. Thank you for that admission too, O Hypocritical One.
>
>
>Your saying so doesn't make it so.
Talking to yourself again? If not, you should be.
>Go find the quote of me saying atheists
>aren't as moral as theists. I know for a fact that you won't be able to find
>it.
???
>> >f I believe in moral realism, it necessarily follows that
>> >I must also believe that atheists are also moral.
>>
>> Which you have asserted you do not believe.
>
>again, wheres the quote???
???
>> >hat differs is arguments
>> >on the nature of morality.
>>
>> Morality is subjective and relative to culture.
>
>http://info1.nwmissouri.edu/~rfield/274guide/274overview1.html#ethical%20relativism
>Ethical Relativism
>But what if there are no common moral values?
Yeah, what if?
> Individual Relativism
> The Situation: A man abducts you and your family for the purposes of his
>own sadistic enjoyment. He takes you and your family to a secluded farm
>house, and tortures your family members for five days before they finally
>die of the severity of their injuries. You miraculously escape just before
>he is about to do the same to you.
> The Implications of Relativism: So long as the assailant in this case does
>not believe he has done anything wrong, he has indeed done nothing wrong.
The situation: A man named Scott writes to Usenet, proclaiming that he
is the sole arbiter of what others believe. he does this over and over
and over again.
The implications of his relativism: so long as Scott ignores that his
behavior is not offensive, then has indeed not been offensive.
> Cultural Relativism
> The Situation: There is a country, Xenophobia,
Your homeland?
>If you find these implications objectionable then you cannot accept ethical
>relativism.
Thank you for the biggest, most boring strawman I have ever seen.
You are such a pompous windbag.
Short version:
morality is relative to culture.
Let's examine the moral that murder is wrong.
Murder is wrong because it deprives another person of the right to
live.
Yet, in the US we have capital punishment for certain crimes.
In Sweden, for example, the death penalty has been abandoned.
The US can justify the death penalty.
Sweden can justify not having the death penalty.
Two different cultures, with two different takes on the same issue.
Morality is relative to culture.
In Central America circa 300 CE, the Mayas, each spring, would make a
human sacrifice to the sun god. The still-beating heart of a virgin
would be ripped from her chest and sometimes eaten. This was all fine,
dandy, and moral in that time at that place.
We don't do that in 21st century North America because that would be
immoral.
Morality is relative to culture.
Get it yet?
Of course not. because you don't realize that there is a difference
between culture and an aberrant individual.
>> >> What you do have is the hubris to judge others when you don't
>> >> understand the subject matter.
>> >
>> >yea sure whatever you say.
>>
>> Actually, it's what you say that proves the point.
>
>Your understanding of ethical philosophy is lacking IMO.
Do you even know how little that means to anyone with a brain?
>> 1. Please spell my screen name right.
>> 2. You have still shown no relationship or contradiction between
>> atheism and your alleged "moral realism."
>> 3. I have proven that moral realism is at best an oxymoron, as you are
>> using the term.
>
>You've shown no such thing because you don't know what is ment by moral
>realism. You don't know what you're going on about
And you do????????
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
>> Got anything else?
>
>atheism = materialism - The view that everything that actually exists is
>material, or physical.
You are so full of crap.
Atheism is lack of belief in god(s), and that's it.
Atheism deals with one thing -- lack of belief in god(s).
For example, I am an atheist, and cogent thought still exists. It can
be proven, too. Cogent thought is neither material nor physical.
I am an atheist, and speech inflection exists. It can be measured and
proven, too. Speech inflection is neither material nor physical.
(I picked these simple examples deliberately.)
>IOW's for atheists, only physical thinks are real.
No.
And might I add, it is so typical for theist boors like you to presume
to know what *all* atheists believe.
You don't get it, and you never will.
>Morals (human rights)
>aren't physical.
Very good. You finally got one right.
>> Ethics and morality -- two different words, two different meanings.
>> Care to keep trying to bull shit your way? Or will you be continuing
>> your mindless cut and paste?
>
>humm. should we take the definition used by The Cambridge Dictionary of
>Philosophy or should we take your word given that you don't understand the
>different implications of ethical philosophies.
Let's see........ argue from the dictionary or from your abject
ignorance, you mean?
>> Morality is relative to culture.
>> NEXT!!!!
>
>About a month ago I had some pissed atheists who took offense to being
>referred to as relativists and they knew alot more about ethical philosophy
>they you.
This run-on sentence does not parse in English.
Tomi
Only straight marriages are rightful. Homosexuality is a sickness!!
maf 1029
wrote:
>Bible says God made human male and female!!
The Bible also says that bats are birds and that rabbits chew their
cud.
>Only straight marriages are rightful.
Do you mean the polygynous marriage between King Solomon and his 800
or so wives, or the polyandrous marriage of David and Saul?
> Homosexuality is a sickness!!
You misspelled "religious delusions," "are," and "evil."
Alan Ferris
>Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are inherent. That
>is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral realism. So why
>don't you try lecturing him on what exactly that means for an atheist.
>
>I don't believe you will do that because I've come to think you don't have
>the integrity to correct or lecture another atheist.
All you are showing is that you are ignorant of what atheism means and
what atheists are. Because you belong to a club you think everybody
must belong to a club.
maf 1029
wrote:
Alan, I admire not only your restraint but your brevity. How do you do
it, and still not mess up your hair?
Alan Ferris
An English trait, have you not seen James Bond :)
That and a good dose of cheesecake.
maf 1029
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:23:14 GMT, maf 1029 <
>ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:18:06 +0000, Alan Ferris <al...@spamddandd.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:20:16 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ferris is an atheist who claimed he believes Human Rights are inherent. That
>>>>is exactly the same thing as saying he believes in moral realism. So why
>>>>don't you try lecturing him on what exactly that means for an atheist.
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe you will do that because I've come to think you don't have
>>>>the integrity to correct or lecture another atheist.
>>>
>>>All you are showing is that you are ignorant of what atheism means and
>>>what atheists are. Because you belong to a club you think everybody
>>>must belong to a club.
>>
>>Alan, I admire not only your restraint but your brevity. How do you do
>>it, and still not mess up your hair?
>
>An English trait, have you not seen James Bond :)
Yes, but I'm generally too busy wiping the drool from my chin to
notice whether he even can speak.
>That and a good dose of cheesecake.
Ah. Cheesecake makes me even wordier. :(
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
Made up ethical subjectivism??
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=ethical+subjectivism&btnG=Google+Search
You said: This follows from an ethcial perspective that harming others is a
no-no.
I replied: I that a fact [that it is a no-no]?
As a relativist/subjectivist, you should've replied back with: No it isn't a
fact but rather an opinion that it is a no-no.
All of which followed from his "By virtue of being human, human beings are
entitled to be treated with respect and are entitled to certain rights."
That is a statement claim a truth-value and begs the question: Where does
this virtue and entitlement come from for an atheist POV.
>
> >> >> Of course, you don't have neither the integrity to admit that
morality
> >> >> is subjective to culture nor the brains to know how ethics differ
from
> >> >> morality.
> >> >> You sure as heck don't have the compassion to admit that atheists
are
> >> >> just as moral and ethical as theists.
> >> >
> >> >Bull shit. I stated just the opposite in another thread about a month
ago
> >on
> >> >debating ethics.
> >>
> >> So, you're arguing both sides of the fence, just as you have accused
> >> others of doing. Thank you for that admission too, O Hypocritical One.
> >
> >
> >Your saying so doesn't make it so.
>
> Talking to yourself again? If not, you should be.
>
>
> >Go find the quote of me saying atheists
> >aren't as moral as theists. I know for a fact that you won't be able to
find
> >it.
>
>
> ???
You claim I made such a statement, that atheists aren't as moral as theists.
Go find the quote or admit I made no such statement.
Here, I'll help you get started in your search:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en&lr=&group=alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic&safe=off
Iit is, rather, I believe that I have spent more time studying different
ethical philosophies and their implications than you
>
> > Cultural Relativism
> > The Situation: There is a country, Xenophobia,
>
> Your homeland?
>
> >If you find these implications objectionable then you cannot accept
ethical
> >relativism.
>
> Thank you for the biggest, most boring strawman I have ever seen.
> You are such a pompous windbag.
>
> Short version:
> morality is relative to culture.
> Let's examine the moral that murder is wrong.
> Murder is wrong because it deprives another person of the right to
> live.
<snipped the rest>
For you info I spent a year of sociology studying cultural relativism.
Relativism breaks down into two version, cultural and individual, having two
common features: .
http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/relativi.htm
Scott
Do you know any non-materialistic atheists (ones that ascribe to
spiritualism ), Alan?
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html
"The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its
philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy
regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data
provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism
is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries."
Since morals aren't material, there's no room in the above description for
"inherent and entitled (your terms)" Rights by virtue of being human (your
terms). http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/RS/n03/RS_2000-10.html Under
this atheistic/naturalistic POV Rights are something people *want* (like ice
cream) and not something they are, as you said, entitled to by virtue of
being human - deontological.
Atheism has philosophical implications beyond simply a-theism.
maf 1029
>
>"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
>news:h3f4509upkgpa1g38...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> This follows from an
>> >> >> ethical perspective that harming others (eg, denying rights to
>others)
>> >> >> is a no-no.
>> >> >
>> >> >Is that a fact???
>> >>
>> >> The ethical perspective is, yes, O Snotty One.
>> >
>> ><I thought you'd step in that one> From the philosophical perspective of
>> >ethical subjectivism morals are opinions not facts. Facts are objective.
>>
>> I knew you'd misread that one.
>> Read it again.
>> I did not say that ethics or your made-up ethical subjectivism
>> (whatever that may mean to you) was a fact.
>> I said the perspective was a fact.
>> You lose, again.
>
>Made up ethical subjectivism??
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=ethical+subjectivism&btnG=Google+Search
Yup. Made up, as in created to suit an agenda.
>You said: This follows from an ethcial perspective that harming others is a
>no-no.
>I replied: I that a fact [that it is a no-no]?
>As a relativist/subjectivist, you should've replied back with: No it isn't a
>fact but rather an opinion that it is a no-no.
That it is a no-no IS a fact, you idiot.
Jesus Christ on a stick, dude, read for comprehension.
Fact: within the ethical perspective, harming others is a no-no.
The ethical perspective itself is what is subjective.
If you can't grasp that, I'm going out on a very sturdy balcony and
say that the rest of your commentary is crap.
Thanks for playing, thanks for telling me what I believe, and thank
you for refusing to comprehend what is clearly and cogently in front
of your face.
<mercy castration to end>.
Scott
"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:35:50 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"maf 1029" < ma...@notjohnson.thankthor> wrote in message
> >news:h3f4509upkgpa1g38...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> >> This follows from an
> >> >> >> ethical perspective that harming others (eg, denying rights to
> >others)
> >> >> >> is a no-no.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Is that a fact???
> >> >>
> >> >> The ethical perspective is, yes, O Snotty One.
> >> >
> >> ><I thought you'd step in that one> From the philosophical perspective
of
> >> >ethical subjectivism morals are opinions not facts. Facts are
objective.
> >>
> >> I knew you'd misread that one.
> >> Read it again.
> >> I did not say that ethics or your made-up ethical subjectivism
> >> (whatever that may mean to you) was a fact.
> >> I said the perspective was a fact.
> >> You lose, again.
> >
> >Made up ethical subjectivism??
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=ethical+subjectivism
&btnG=Google+Search
>
> Yup. Made up, as in created to suit an agenda.
you're so full of shit.
>
> >You said: This follows from an ethcial perspective that harming others is
a
> >no-no.
> >I replied: I that a fact [that it is a no-no]?
>
> >As a relativist/subjectivist, you should've replied back with: No it
isn't a
> >fact but rather an opinion that it is a no-no.
>
> That it is a no-no IS a fact, you idiot.
> Jesus Christ on a stick, dude, read for comprehension.
stupid, that is moral realism or normative relativism within a specified
culture. It is not, however, a moral fact as defined
http://www.csun.edu/~dp56722/460l7.pdf . From the ethcial perspective of
relativism there is NO truth-value in morals, therefore, from this relative
persective there are no moral facts. There are only ethical opinions about a
factual event/action ( that something is a no-no is an opinion about some
factual event) The only factual claim that ethical relativism makes is that
morality is relative
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-11. Example: It
might be a no-no for one gang member to shoot/harm another of the same gang.
However, it might be expected for a member of the gang to shoot/harm a
member of a rival gang. Not to harm the rival gang member would be the
no-no.
http://www.equip.org/free/DA241.htm
The Argument from the Virtue of Tolerance
Argument no. 2 for ethical relativism states: Since ethical relativism
promotes tolerance of certain cultural practices that members of Western
civilization may think are strange, ethical relativism is a good thing.
However, although tolerance often is a virtue, ethical relativists simply
cannot justify their own position by appealing to it in this way. First, the
value of tolerance presupposes the existence of at least one real objective
(or absolute) value: tolerance. Bioethicist Tom Beauchamp makes this
observation:
If we interpret normative relativism as requiring tolerance of other
views, the whole theory is imperiled by inconsistency. The proposition that
we ought to tolerate the views of others, or that it is right not to
interfere with others, is precluded by the very strictures of the theory.
Such a proposition bears all the marks of a non-relative account of moral
rightness, one based on, but not reducible to, the cross-cultural findings
of anthropologists...But if this moral principle [of tolerance] is
recognized as valid, it can of course be employed as an instrument for
criticizing such cultural practices as the denial of human rights to
minorities and such beliefs as that of racial superiority. A moral
commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably
to the abandonment of normative relativism.4
Second, tolerance can only be a virtue if we think the other person, whose
viewpoint we're supposed to tolerate, is mistaken. That is to say, if we do
not believe one viewpoint is better than another, then to ask us to be
tolerant of other viewpoints makes no sense. For to tolerate another's
viewpoint implies that this other person has a right to his or her viewpoint
despite the fact that others may think it is wrong. To be tolerant of
differing viewpoints involves just that - differing viewpoints, all of which
cannot be equally correct at the same time. The man who supposes himself
tolerant while at the same time he believes nobody is either right or wrong
about any moral value is actually no more virtuous than the man who supposes
his virginity is chastity even though he was born with no sexual organs.
Consequently, real tolerance presupposes someone is right and someone is
wrong, which implicitly denies moral relativism.
Moral relativism has been rejected by a near unanimous number of both
secular and theistic ethicists and philosophers.6 Yet it is still popular to
espouse this view in many of our secularized cultural institutions. It is
thought to be more tolerant, more open, and more intellectually respectable
than the old-fashioned "absolutism."7 As we have seen, however, moral
relativism is inconsistent with tolerance, closed off to the possibility of
moral truth, and an intellectual failure.
Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. is a Lecturer of Philosophy at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. His latest books are Politically Correct Death: Answering
the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Baker, 1993) and Are You Politically
Correct? Debating America's Cultural Standards (Prometheus, 1993).
For being such a [tolerent] cultural relativist, you sure are intolerant of
the traditionalists majority in this culture who don't want gay marriages.
maf1029
Talking to yourself again. Great.
>>
>> >You said: This follows from an ethcial perspective that harming others is
>a
>> >no-no.
>> >I replied: I that a fact [that it is a no-no]?
>>
>> >As a relativist/subjectivist, you should've replied back with: No it
>isn't a
>> >fact but rather an opinion that it is a no-no.
>>
>> That it is a no-no IS a fact, you idiot.
>> Jesus Christ on a stick, dude, read for comprehension.
>
>stupid,
IKYABWAI
>> Fact: within the ethical perspective, harming others is a no-no.
>> The ethical perspective itself is what is subjective.
>>
>> If you can't grasp that, I'm going out on a very sturdy balcony and
>> say that the rest of your commentary is crap.
>> Thanks for playing, thanks for telling me what I believe, and thank
>> you for refusing to comprehend what is clearly and cogently in front
>> of your face.
>>
>> <mercy castration to end>.
And no snotty comment. Quelle surprise.
Scott
"maf1029" <ma...@ihatemclarks.bibliolatry> wrote in message
news:5spe50h98pbk3r8vf...@4ax.com...
again, you're snipping stuff that knocks down your *ethical* perpestive. No
surprise.
What some more snotty stuff, Mr. supposedly tolerant relativist?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html
Is Morality a Matter of Taste?
Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely "Subjective"
by Theodore Schick, Jr.
Although the notion that reality is socially constructed strikes many as
decidedly odd, it hardly raises an eyebrow. Many who vehemently deny that we
can make something true by simply believing it to be so readily agree that
we can make something right by simply believing it to be right. The view
that belief makes right is known as "subjectivism" or "relativism." Despite
its popularity, there are probably fewer subjectivists among professional
ethicists than there are creationists among professional biologists. Why?
Because as ethical theories go, subjectivism is about as bad as they come.
To see this, it's necessary to understand something about the nature and
purpose of ethical theorizing.
One of the central questions of ethics is "What makes an action right?"
Ethical theories try to answer this question by identifying the features
that distinguish right actions from wrong ones. That is, they try to
determine what all and only right actions have in common. In other words,
they try to identify the logically necessary and sufficient conditions for
an action's being right.
The data that ethical theories try to explain include our considered moral
judgments and our experience of the moral life. We all make moral judgments,
we all get into moral disputes, and we all act immorally from time to time.
Any adequate theory of morality must be consistent with this data. If an
ethical theory sanctions obviously immoral actions, if it denies that there
can be any substantive moral disagreements, or if it implies that we never
act immorally, there's good reason to believe that it's mistaken.
An ethical theory should also be workable - it should help us solve moral
dilemmas. We desire an adequate ethical theory because we want to do the
right thing. If an ethical theory doesn't give us specific guidance in
specific situations, it fails to meet one of the primary goals of ethical
inquiry.
Subjectivism
Subjectivism claims that what makes an action right is that a person
approves of it or believes that it's right. Although subjectivism may seem
admirably egalitarian in that it takes everyone's moral judgments to be as
good as everyone else's, it has some rather bizarre consequences. For one
thing, it implies that each of us is morally infallible. As long as we
approve of or believe in what we are doing, we can do no wrong. But this
cannot be right. Suppose that Hitler believed that it was right to
exterminate the Jews. Then it was right for Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
Or suppose that Stalin believed that it was right to assassinate his
enemies. Then it was right for Stalin to assassinate his enemies.
Subjectivism sanctions any action as long as the person performing it
approves of it or believes that it's right. But what Hitler and Stalin did
was wrong, even if they believed otherwise. So believing something to be
right can't make it right.
Not only does subjectivism imply that everyone is morally infallible, it
also implies that moral disagreement is next to impossible. Suppose Jack
says that homosexuality is right, and Jill says that it's wrong. You might
think that Jack and Jill disagree with one another. But you would be
mistaken. According to subjective relativism, Jack is saying that he
believes that homosexuality is right while Jill is saying that she believes
that homosexuality is wrong. But this doesn't constitute a disagreement
because neither is denying what the other is saying. In order for Jill to
disagree with Jack, she would have to say that Jack doesn't believe that
homosexuality is right. But it's difficult to see how she could ever be in a
position to make such a claim because, presumably, no one knows Jack's mind
better than Jack.
Subjectivism, then, fails to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical
theories: it sanctions obviously immoral actions, it implies that people are
morally infallible, and it denies that there are any substantive moral
disputes. Because it is inconsistent with our considered moral judgments and
our experience of the moral life, it is not an acceptable ethical theory.
Cultural Relativism
When we say that an action is right, we cannot merely be saying that we
approve of it or believe that it's right. What are we saying then? Many
believe that we're saying that our culture approves of it or believes that
it's right.
Our moral beliefs tend to reflect the culture in which we grew up. For
example, if we grew up in India, we may believe that it's morally
permissible for wives to be burned alive along with their dead husbands on a
funeral pyre. If we grew up in Syria, we may believe that it's morally
permissible to have more than one wife. And if we grew up in the Sudan, we
may believe that it's morally permissible for young women to have their
clitorises surgically removed. If we grew up in America, however, we are
likely to believe that none of these practices are morally permissible.
Since people in different cultures have different moral beliefs, the
conclusion that morality is relative to culture seems unavoidable.
Cultural relativism, unlike subjectivism, does not imply that individuals
are morally infallible. But it does imply that cultures are morally
infallible. Since cultures make the moral law, cultures can do no wrong.
If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to
disagree with one's culture and be right. Social reformers couldn't claim
that a socially approved practice is wrong because if, society approves of
it, it must be right. If society approves of slavery, for example, then
slavery is right. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply mistaken. Thus
cultural relativism would have us believe that William Lloyd Garrison
advocated an immoral position when he advocated the abolition of slavery.
But this is not what we believe. We believe that the practice of slavery was
wrong even though our culture approved of it. Since cultures are not morally
infallible - since they can sanction immoral practices - cultural relativism
cannot be correct.
Unlike subjectivism, cultural relativism does not rule out all forms of
moral discourse. Since individuals can be mistaken about what their society
approves, there can be legitimate grounds for moral disagreement. But since
whatever society approves is right, all moral disagreements must be about
what society approves. People who disagree about the morality of abortion,
for example, must really be disagreeing about whether society approves of
abortion. But is this plausible? When people argue about whether abortion is
morally permissible, are they really arguing about what their society
believes? Could the abortion controversy be solved by means of an opinion
survey? Of course not. Thus cultural relativism, too, is inconsistent with
our considered moral judgments and our experience of the moral life.
Even if cultural relativism provided a plausible account of ethical
disagreement, it would still be an inadequate theory of morality because it
is unworkable. It doesn't help us solve moral dilemmas because there is no
way to identify one's true culture. Suppose you were a black, Jewish,
communist living in Bavaria during Hitler's reign. What would be your true
culture? The blacks? The Jews? The communists? The Bavarians? The Nazis?
Each of us belongs to many different cultures, and there is no way to
establish one culture as our true culture. If we can't identify our true
culture, however, we can't use cultural relativism to solve our moral
problems.
Given cultural relativism's many failings, why is it so popular? Part of the
answer is that many people believe that it promotes tolerance.
Anthropologist Ruth Benedict, for example, claims that, by accepting
cultural relativism, "we shall arrive at a more realistic social faith,
accepting as grounds of hope and as new bases for tolerance the coexisting
and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from
the raw materials of existence." [1] But to explicitly advocate cultural
relativism on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to implicitly assume
that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any absolute values,
however, cultural relativism is false.
The most a cultural relativist can consistently claim is that her culture
values tolerance. But other cultures may not. In fact, fundamentalists of
almost every stripe do not tolerate those who disagree with them. From a
cultural relativist point of view, then, their intolerance is perfectly
justified. Thus any attempt to justify cultural relativism by an appeal to
tolerance is bound to fail.
Another reason that cultural relativism is so popular is that it seems to be
the only ethical theory that is consistent with the anthropological
evidence. The inadequacy of cultural relativism suggests that this
conclusion is mistaken, however. To see why, let's examine the
anthropological argument in more detail.
The Anthropological Argument
The anthropological argument for cultural relativism says that, because
people in different cultures disagree about the morality of various actions,
there are no universal moral standards. But the fact that people disagree
does not, by itself, imply that there are no absolute moral standards. Only
in conjunction with certain other assumptions can that conclusion be
reached. By making these assumptions explicit, we can better judge the
soundness of the anthropological argument for cultural relativism. Here's
one way of spelling out the argument:
1.. People in different societies make different moral judgments regarding
the same action.
2.. If people in different societies make different moral judgments
regarding the same action, they must accept different moral standards.
3.. If people in different societies accept different moral standards,
there are no universal moral standards.
4.. Therefore, there are no universal moral standards.
This is a valid argument because the conclusion follows from the premises.
The question is, are the premises true? Premise 1 is certainly true, for it
has been confirmed by anthropological investigation many times over. What
about premise 3? It states that if people disagree about what makes an
action right, there can be no correct answer to the question, "What makes an
action right?" But this doesn't follow. From the mere fact that people
disagree, we can't conclude that none of the parties to the disagreement is
correct.
Premise 3 is not the only questionable premise in this argument, however.
Premise 2 says that whenever people disagree about the morality of an action
they must accept different moral standards. In other words, it says that,
whenever there is a difference in moral judgments, there is a difference in
moral standards. But moral judgments do not depend on moral standards alone.
To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs
about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can
be made. The formula for a moral judgment, then, can be expressed as
follows:
Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment
Since moral standards alone do not imply moral judgments, it is not
necessarily true that, whenever there is a difference in moral judgments,
there is a difference in moral standards. Any difference in judgment could
also be due to a difference in factual beliefs.
Some anthropologists believe that this is often the case. Solomon Asch
writes:
It has been customary to hold that diverse evaluations of the same act are
automatic evidence for the presence of different principles of evaluation.
The preceding examples point to an error in this interpretation. Indeed, an
examination of the relational factors point to the operation of constant
principles in situations that differ in concrete details. ...
Anthropological evidence does not furnish proof of relativism. We do not
know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to
honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue. It
seems rather that the relations between valuation and meaning are invariant.
[2]
According to Asch, people in different cultures arrive at different moral
judgments, not because they have different views about the nature of
morality, but because they have different views about the nature of reality.
Consider the abortion controversy. Pro-life people believe that abortion is
wrong while pro-choice people believe that it is right. Does this mean that
they have different views about the nature of morality? No, because they
both believe that murder is wrong. What they disagree about is the nature of
the fetus. Is the fetus the sort of thing that can be murdered? Their
disagreement, then, is about the reality of the fetus, not about the
morality of murder. Since moral judgments follow from both a moral standard
and certain factual beliefs, a difference in moral judgments does not
necessarily imply a difference in moral standards.
Although moral disagreement is widespread, we do seem to be making moral
progress. We have abolished slavery, given women the vote, and made tuna
dolphin-safe. This constitutes progress, however, only if there are fixed
moral standards against which we can judge our actions and policies. If
there were no such standards, we would have no grounds for thinking that
things are better now than they were before. The best explanation of the
fact that we are making moral progress, then, is that there are universal
moral standards.
Where do these standards come from? No one, not even God, can make an action
right by simply believing it to be right. Many, including the founders of
this country, believe that moral standards can justify themselves!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" proclaims the Declaration of
Independence. A self-evident truth is one that is such that if you
understand it, you are justified in believing it. Consider, for example, the
statement whatever has a shape has a size. If you understand that
statement - if you know what shape and size are - you are justified in
believing it. You don't need any additional evidence to support your belief.
What makes self-evident truths self-evident is that they do not stand in
need of any further justification; they justify themselves.
It is widely believed that there are self-evident truths in logic, such as
the statement that everything is identical with itself. But are there any
self-evident truths in morality? Consider the statement, "Unnecessary
suffering is wrong." This statement does not say that suffering is wrong or
that no one has suffered unnecessarily. What it says is that whenever one is
made to suffer unnecessarily, a wrong has been committed. To anyone who
understands what suffering and wrong are, this statement should be
self-evident.
If you do not believe that this statement is true, the burden of proof is on
you to provide a counterexample. If you are unable to do so - if you cannot
cite a situation in which unnecessary suffering is right - then your claim
that it is false is irrational, for you have no good reason to make it.
There are a number of such self-evident ethical truths, such as equals
should be treated equally and the unnecessary destruction of value is wrong.
These principles do not constitute a theory of morality because they do not
specify what all and only right actions have in common. But they do serve as
boundary conditions that any theory of morality must meet. If a moral theory
would sanction violating one or more of these principles - as would
subjectivism or cultural relativism - it is unacceptable.
Theodore Schick, Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College and
coauthor (with Lewis Vaughn) of How to Think about Weird Things (Mayfield,
1995) and Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments
(Mayfield, 1999).
maf1029
Scott
"maf1029" <ma...@ihatemclarks.bibliolatry> wrote in message
that's because the ethical philosophical meanings and definitions don't
change as you'd have them in an attempt to support your argument.
You are intolerant of the [cultural] traditionalists who want to keep the
definition of marriage as man and woman.
maf1029
>
>"maf1029" <ma...@ihatemclarks.bibliolatry> wrote in message
>news:i12j50d4c1toj293f...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:06:04 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> <nothing new or original>
>
>that's because the ethical philosophical meanings and definitions don't
>change as you'd have them in an attempt to support your argument.
Not my fault that you don't understand what you have cut and paste.
>You are intolerant of the [cultural] traditionalists who want to keep the
>definition of marriage as man and woman.
That is not how legal marriage is defined in my jurisdiction.
Scott
"maf1029" <ma...@ihatemclarks.bibliolatry> wrote in message
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:51:37 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"maf1029" <ma...@ihatemclarks.bibliolatry> wrote in message
> >news:i12j50d4c1toj293f...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:06:04 GMT, "Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <nothing new or original>
> >
> >that's because the ethical philosophical meanings and definitions don't
> >change as you'd have them in an attempt to support your argument.
>
> Not my fault that you don't understand what you have cut and paste.
oh I understand it quit well. you however do not.
>
> >You are intolerant of the [cultural] traditionalists who want to keep the
> >definition of marriage as man and woman.
>
> That is not how legal marriage is defined in my jurisdiction.
who care about your jurisdiction
http://www.legal-definitions.com/M,%20N,%20O,%20P/marriage.htm
marriage - marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as a husband
and wife, though the definition might be evolving.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm
MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a
free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint
lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the
terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they
are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a
lawful marriage.