|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 14, 2010 4:52:21 GMT -5
What should count when considering animal-related legislation is who, not what, is harmed if personal ethics don't play a part in our laws. If my violent acts against my dog can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on people, not the dog, then outlawing such an act is warranted. Again, that's if we crafted our laws without giving thought to personal ethics. Since the opposite is actually the case, moral considerations can be a legit. factor when making some laws. FYI, the reason my last few postings took a slightly different direction was that I was belatedly responding to a particular point brought up by another poster sometime ago. Waaaayyyyy to miss my point. I said Animal abuse causes harm, but I never said the harm focused only on people. Animals can be harmed too, you know. Also, adverse effect on people? Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "Icky"? Animal abuse is icky, therefore ban? That's not a rational basis for any law. Homosexuality is icky, therefore ban? Seriously? Are you really wanting to head in that direction? If you are saying that homosexuality has an 'adverse effect' on other people, how does it have such an effect? Does this effect cause harm or what? And if there is a demonstrable effect, why should we give it any weight in terms of legal considerations?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 14, 2010 6:27:12 GMT -5
For this analogy to work, you have to show that homosexuality is harmful by its very nature. Animal abuse causes harm, therefore, forming laws to minimise and punish abuse are created. However, how does homosexuality cause harm? Who does it hurt? Can you show the harm caused by homosexuality? What should count when considering animal-related legislation is who, not what, is harmed if personal ethics don't play a part in our laws. If my violent acts against my dog can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on people, not the dog, then outlawing such an act is warranted. Again, that's if we crafted our laws without giving thought to personal ethics. Since the opposite is actually the case, moral considerations can be a legit. factor when making some laws. FYI, the reason my last few postings took a slightly different direction was that I was belatedly responding to a particular point brought up by another poster sometime ago. You're just assuming that the principle at work should be "harm to people" rather than "harm to beings capable of suffering". Why is one a case of personal ethics and not the other?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2010 6:48:34 GMT -5
The analogy still doesn't work. Yes, there are people who think that it's okay to harm animals, but that still doesn't change the fact that such actions are proven to cause pain. Gay marriage, on the other hand, has never been proven to harm any living creature, human or otherwise. We only legislate morality when it comes to things that will lead to pain and suffering. Whether or not one partakes in victimless 'sins' -- even those that are disliked by the majority of society -- should be entirely up to the individual, not the government nor the general population.
You never answered my questions:
Why is being gay immoral? I know that Christians believe this because it says so in the bible, but why does the bible ban homosexuality? Name one proven consequence of gay marriage. We know that animal cruelty causes pain and suffering, but who is harmed by two men getting married? How can something be immoral/unethical if it doesn't harm anyone? If an action does not cause any harm, religious belief alone doesn't justify banning it. Doing so would be forcing your religion onto others -- which, incidentally, does cause harm.
As far as religion goes, shouldn't this be between homosexuals and god? Why is this one victimless 'sin' singled out to be banned, but most of the rest aren't?
I have an additional question: How is attempting to ban gay marriage any different than someone attempting to ban religion? Both deal with personal morality, and freedom of choice. So... how are they the least bit different? Would you not consider the latter to be a violation of your civil rights?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 14, 2010 10:15:07 GMT -5
Okay, here's a question, what is banning gay marriage supposed to accomplish? Gays will still have homosexual relationships. They will still raise families. They will still have kids (adopted, surrogate, from a previous marriage, turkey baster, whatever). If anything, banning gay marriage makes it harder for those kids as it is denying their parents a degree of stability that hetero families have. Which makes it kind of amazing that studies show kids far as well (or better) with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex parents. Also, because this only makes gay marriage illegal, and not gay relationships, there is nothing the gov't can do to stop them from doing anything of what I listed. As such, it accomplishes nothing except to make life more difficult for a segment of the population.
Whereas, with the animal abuse example, it does stop people from harming animals and when people harm them, they risk facing punishment for it. The animal is taken away and has a chance of living a better life.
jlujan, what do you want to accomplish with a gay marriage ban? What societal effect do you want it to have? And I urge you to keep in mind the story of the good Samaritan (who, by the way, was violating more than one minor levitical law, he was violating the first of the ten commandments).
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 14, 2010 14:57:50 GMT -5
You're just assuming that the principle at work should be "harm to people" rather than "harm to beings capable of suffering". Why is one a case of personal ethics and not the other? Both opposition to animal abuse and opposition to same gender marriage are based on one's sense of personal ethics. To the op: sorry for taking your thread in a whole other direction.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Oct 14, 2010 15:02:36 GMT -5
Okay, here's a question, what is banning gay marriage supposed to accomplish? What most popular political programs, that are doomed to fail when the pollies promoting them damned well know they will, are supposed to accomplish. Getting the rubes to vote you in for another term in office!
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 14, 2010 16:54:11 GMT -5
Both opposition to animal abuse and opposition to same gender marriage are based on one's sense of personal ethics. And now, you've stepped into frustrating territory. When it comes to enforcing one particular set of ethics over another, what is important to consider? Evidence and rational basis. We enforce animal abuse laws because there it is demonstrable that animals can suffer, from pain, etc. Animals in general are capable of suffering, and because of that, we enforce laws to minimise suffering and abuse. Same thing with children. Parents may have a right to raise their children as they see fit, but that right ends as soon as it starts to enter the area of abuse. Personal ethics still, but we can at least have a rational basis for enforcing this set of ethics. Reduce harm to children, and it is more likely that the children will grow up balanced and less to prone to mental instabilities (of which abuse can inflict and does). If it is shown that a child is being abused, the state can intervene and remove the child from the abusive environment. All to prevent the child from being harmed further. What is the rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage? What harm does it cause? Can it be demonstrated? Please answer these questions or at least acknowledge them.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 14, 2010 17:22:00 GMT -5
You never answered my questions: Why is being gay immoral? I know that Christians believe this because it says so in the bible, but why does the bible ban homosexuality? Name one proven consequence of gay marriage. We know that animal cruelty causes pain and suffering, but who is harmed by two men getting married? How can something be immoral/unethical if it doesn't harm anyone? If an action does not cause any harm, religious belief alone doesn't justify banning it. Doing so would be forcing your religion onto others -- which, incidentally, does cause harm.
As far as religion goes, shouldn't this be between homosexuals and god? Why is this one victimless 'sin' singled out to be banned, but most of the rest aren't?I have an additional question: How is attempting to ban gay marriage any different than someone attempting to ban religion? Both deal with personal morality, and freedom of choice. So... how are they the least bit different? Would you not consider the latter to be a violation of your civil rights? Defining immorality only as that which brings unjust harm to another person is ok as a working definition, but for the Christian, something is immoral ultimately because it's an offence first to God and then in many cases, to humans as well. ?This is probably why a theocratic Israel banned it and provided civil penalties for it. As far as to what extent a particular religion should figure into the law, well, let that debate continue. I realize that legislating all of the Ten Commandments could prove a bit unworkable, to say the least. For example, how do you truly enforce the ones that deal with man's relationship with God? Pretty tough to do. As far as forcing my religous beliefs on someone else, it could be argued that those trying to get same sex marriage legalized are guilty of the same thing--completely re-defining what a marriage is. Would I want my religion banned? No. Am I trying to ban homosexuality? No. It is between them and God. However, what's next? What other non-mainstream lifestyle will want the special status that marriage accords. I just don't want to see it reach the point where marriage becomes meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by shykid on Oct 14, 2010 17:49:36 GMT -5
You never answered my questions: Why is being gay immoral? I know that Christians believe this because it says so in the bible, but why does the bible ban homosexuality? Name one proven consequence of gay marriage. We know that animal cruelty causes pain and suffering, but who is harmed by two men getting married? How can something be immoral/unethical if it doesn't harm anyone? If an action does not cause any harm, religious belief alone doesn't justify banning it. Doing so would be forcing your religion onto others -- which, incidentally, does cause harm.
As far as religion goes, shouldn't this be between homosexuals and god? Why is this one victimless 'sin' singled out to be banned, but most of the rest aren't?I have an additional question: How is attempting to ban gay marriage any different than someone attempting to ban religion? Both deal with personal morality, and freedom of choice. So... how are they the least bit different? Would you not consider the latter to be a violation of your civil rights? Defining immorality only as that which brings unjust harm to another person is ok as a working definition, but for the Christian, something is immoral ultimately because it's an offence first to God and then in many cases, to humans as well. ?This is probably why a theocratic Israel banned it and provided civil penalties for it. As far as to what extent a particular religion should figure into the law, well, let that debate continue. I realize that legislating all of the Ten Commandments could prove a bit unworkable, to say the least. For example, how do you truly enforce the ones that deal with man's relationship with God? Pretty tough to do. As far as forcing my religous beliefs on someone else, it could be argued that those trying to get same sex marriage legalized are guilty of the same thing--completely re-defining what a marriage is. Would I want my religion banned? No. Am I trying to ban homosexuality? No. It is between them and God. However, what's next? What other non-mainstream lifestyle will want the special status that marriage accords. I just don't want to see it reach the point where marriage becomes meaningless. tl;dr
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Oct 14, 2010 17:52:39 GMT -5
Defining immorality only as that which brings unjust harm to another person is ok as a working definition, but for the Christian, something is immoral ultimately because it's an offence first to God and then in many cases, to humans as well. ?This is probably why a theocratic Israel banned it and provided civil penalties for it. Offense is still not something that can be considered a rational basis for a law. As far as to what extent a particular religion should figure into the law, well, let that debate continue. I realize that legislating all of the Ten Commandments could prove a bit unworkable, to say the least. For example, how do you truly enforce the ones that deal with man's relationship with God? Pretty tough to do. Or maybe you just don't. Pretty simple, works with everyone, end of debate. As far as forcing my religous beliefs on someone else, it could be argued that those trying to get same sex marriage legalized are guilty of the same thing--completely re-defining what a marriage is. Would I want my religion banned? No. Am I trying to ban homosexuality? No. It is between them and God. However, what's next? What other non-mainstream lifestyle will want the special status that marriage accords. I just don't want to see it reach the point where marriage becomes meaningless. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA.... oh man, seriously? Marriage was originally to do with property rights and ownership. Not love or a relationship between a man and a woman. It used to cover one man and many women. Then it was redefined to one man and one woman of the same race. Then it was redefined to being one man and one woman, regardless of race. Marriage has been redefined so many damn times already, it is meaningless in the sense of its original purpose. But what matters in not the 'original purpose', is it? You just don't want the definition to 'change' as it currently stands. To which I ask, why does it matter if it gets redefined again? The institution of marriage did not crumble into insignificance when interracial marriage was legalised, so why will it do so for same-sex marriage? By the way, all that legalisation does is guarantee government recognition of these marriages. At no point does it force churches to have to marry same-sex couples. So, saying it is forcing a view onto people is patently false, because it is mere legal recognition.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 14, 2010 18:09:02 GMT -5
In other words, you recognize your biases, but you don't try to look past them?
Your assessment is horribly wrong. I won't dispute what the media position (TM) is, but you're saying that it makes you uncomfortable that it calls your position hateful &/or bigoted, IE, immoral. You imply that they should not be doing this. However, you are upset because you perceive that you cannot call homosexuality immoral.
To put it another way, you don't like being criticized on your attitude towards homosexuality, but you want to be able to criticize it yourself.
And that definition is okay if you like crap. A basic rule of definitions is that they're supposed to be unbiased. "Immoral" is "that which goes against moral values." It isn't defined as homosexuality, eating meat, etc. depending on the culture.
You "can" argue anything. However, dealing with the fact that other groups of people can do the same things that you can is not being religiously oppressed.
You seem to be relatively reasonable, so I'll just point out that this is the Slippery Slope Argument, & leave it alone otherwise.
Too late.
|
|
jlujan69
Full Member
unenlightened, backwoods, no-count fundy
Posts: 113
|
Post by jlujan69 on Oct 14, 2010 18:45:38 GMT -5
Just to show you how odd I can be, late last year, my island's gov't held public hearings on legalizing same sex unions. The responses from both sides were passionate, to say the least. Well, before the bill was ultimately withdrawn, an alternative was proposed. It would have created civil unions for same sex couples or hetero couples who co-habitated and would have preserved the traditional definition of marriage. I supported that, but it too was pulled.
I also support gay couples being able to legally adopt children and think that if the military is ok with repealing DADT, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Oct 14, 2010 18:50:42 GMT -5
What other non-mainstream lifestyle will want the special status that marriage accords. I just don't want to see it reach the point where marriage becomes meaningless. What special status are you talking about? Really, it's just couple of signatures on a piece of paper. Even in the days when it apparently had "meaning," it was still just a public acknowledgment that two people are committed to each other, and that regardless of the conditions of their relationship, they would be regarded as married.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 14, 2010 19:25:06 GMT -5
I understand that. I want to know why it's an offense to god. Let's say you're right, and the bible is the word of god. How can you be okay with him banning something that causes no harm? How can you want to serve a being who would want gays to be miserable simply because he thinks that two men kissing is icky?
No, it couldn't -- or shouldn't, anyway. Banning gay marriage has a major impact on the lives of LGBTs. Gays getting married and having a different definition for the word "marriage" than you do doesn't impact your life at all. Another person having the freedom to do something you dislike is NOT the same thing as another person banning you from doing something because they dislike it. The situations would only be comparable if gay marriage actually harmed you in some way, which it doesn't.
Look at it this way: Hindus have different religious practices than you do. They define 'god' differently than you do. I think we can all agree that banning them from practicing their religion because of all this would be wrong. However, I doubt you'd claim that they're forcing their definition of 'god' onto you. Their definitions, beliefs and practices only affect their own lives, just as gays getting married only affects them.
I would argue that homosexuality has become mainstream. I'd also argue that it's no more a "lifestyle" than being straight or preferring mates with blonde hair. That's neither here nor there, however.
Marriage doesn't become meaningless just because it changes. Two men who marry each other will love one other every bit as much as two people of the opposite sex. Most will have kids, build a home, and dream of growing old together. In short, shouldn't it be up to the individual to define marriage? If I have a different definition than you do, does that make yours any less meaningful? Of course not. Marriage is a personal choice, and, as such, should be defined on a personal level.
Marriage is hardly a special status. Anyone can get married, regardless of their reasons. But let's say we want it to have a special status... well, shouldn't that status deal with love, rather than the genitalia of each respective partner? If we make marriage about gender instead of love, we cheapen it. Would you not agree that getting married out of love is more worthy of celebration than getting married for the money, for social status, etc.*? Even if the couple marrying out of love is gay, and the money/social status marriage was straight?
* which, by the way, is closer to the traditional definition of marriage, at least up until a couple hundred years ago
What's next? Well, not all that much. Polygamy may be legalized somewhere down the road, but I personally don't see that as a problem. Again, as long as all parties are consenting adults who aren't being pressured into it, and there is no sexism involved, it's comparable to gay marriage. Like I said, their definition does not invalidate your definition. Live and let live, different strokes, etc.
Marrying animals, children, etc.? No. Not gonna happen. Animals and kids can't consent to marriage, whereas a gay adult can. Considering the strong anti-pedophile sentiment amongst the masses, liberals and conservatives alike, I just can't see anyone supporting marriage rights for child molesters.
Gay marriage isn't going to destroy marriage any more than interracial marriage did. If anything, divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than homosexuality. Many Christians are against that too, but you don't see anywhere near as many people trying to outlaw divorce. Ultimately, marriage is -- or should be -- about love. Husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife... if there is love involved, then marriage hasn't become meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Oct 14, 2010 20:14:41 GMT -5
I just don't want to see it reach the point where marriage becomes meaningless. Question- what, exactly, do you consider to be the "meaning" of marriage? If it about love? Is it about creating stability for children? For society? Is it about tax breaks? What does marriage mean to you? Now, for whatever you consider the meaning of marriage to be, what are the related unique attributes of an opposite-sex marriage that are not present in a same sex marriage? For instance, if you believe marriage is about love- how is the love of two people of the same gender any different than the love of two people of opposite genders?
|
|