[nittiley]

Originally Posted by NICK G

Yes I do. As long as we are a two party system there will always be a division of thoughts, ideas, concerns, etc.
Now if we had a third party, NO, NOT THE TEA PARTY!!!!, with a majority of like thinkers, maybe.

definitely agree the binary 2 party system has fostered more divisiveness in the states.
also that extreme offshoots (tea party) isn't helping either; the extreme aspects of occupy had similar problems

"Do you want to be right or happy?"

what? can't be both once in a while?

Just like the Middle East will never change, out perceptions and actions will never change either. Kinda sad, huh?

can't remember if it was discussed on tsg or elsewhere, but there was (& it may still be in existence) a group that had younger jewish & arab kids spend the equivalent of a summer camp together. the obvious idea was for these adolescents to bond & form friendships to prevent the endless fighting in the future.

too idealistic? perhaps. however.. far better than the alternative of shrugging your shoulders & doing nothing

Originally Posted by Ent

Not particularly.

well, you've just terminated all my hopes & beliefs in the flexibility of youth ! and.. i thought if we managed this, we could compromise on abortion too.

allow me to finish snuffing out my dreams that compromise is possible {STOMP!! STOMP!! eeeiiiii..}.
ok, all done..!

He can be right or wrong, it's not much bother to me.

it wasn't actually about NickG; it was basically a challenge for you.

I happen to think he's right, especially with regards the 2-party problems. That's come up before in this thread, and is so ingrained in people's minds that they assume that anyone who is against Same-sex-marriage must be right wing on all manner of social, political, and economic debates as well.

this is a problem, & it seems we've all experienced that on some level.

Again, not really. There's not much room for compromise.

i'd venture that there isn't room for compromise only if you've got that idea cemented in your cranium

The issue is rather, well, binary. Besides which, I would never compromise what I believe to get out of defending my beliefs.

which is exactly why i positioned it the way i did. the idea wasn't for you to stop defending your beliefs, or give up your beliefs. we were to set some sort of global policy, unfettered about the necessity of being re-elected (like politicians are). there would be elements each of us didn't particularly like or personally agree with (me --> promotion of one coupling, formal & legalised monogamy, set forth as society's *ideal* / you --> allowing traditional marriage to include non-traditional participants).

remember, you were still allowed to make the compromised, official, & legal policy while voicing your personal beliefs of opposition. you would consider gay marriage invalid in the eyes of: you, your social circle, your church, etc. it would only be from a legal standpoint (that did not force religious institutions to participate unless they chose to do so) that you were supporting it.

in essence, you apply a binary mindset to tackle the problem because you're working with another person (me) to make some cohesion out of 2 groups that want 2 different goals settled (& i'll add with 2 entirely different perspectives --> the civil rights, & definition-of-marriage aspects.

i still say we can do this, but naturally, i can't do it by myself.

As I've said before, I'm not that concerned about the legal side except insomuch as a great many people tend to assume the law must be right (Being in Kohlberg's fourth stage of moral reasoning). It's a point of ethics, philosophy or sociology before it's a point of law.

concur . when people have different ethics (& i'll add that are correct & moral in each person's viewpoint), what do you do? simply allow the majority to rule because they're the majority? that isn't a moral application.

i'll use another person's quote to illustrate how morals can vary & essentially be correct for each person. sorry to usher religion back in, but i don't know how else to explain yours without it. this man -- a former area county sheriff (a heterosexual, not that it particularly matters) -- explains the other moral locus.

background: he had discovered the body of a victim of a hate crime (the victim was beaten & killed because he was a homosexual). during a recent city council meeting regarding a proposed law to prevent discrimination, he mentioned making

infertile ground.. for all those whose own moral conscience is so weak that they judge people on their characteristics, rather than their character. http://journalstar.com/news/local/cr...723e90d6f.html

ent's

Moreover, you'll also find that your proposed "compromise" is internally inconsistent.

inconsistent is irrelevant when you're attempting to set certain goals

There are no significant arguments for homosexuality that do not equally apply to polygamy, and no cogent arguments against polygamy that do not equally apply against homosexuality.

i realise this, but had to start somewhere. i couldn't have you making all the sacrifices without some concessions on my end. plus, i don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, unless you count my belief that monogamy is best suited for some, but not all (& that divorce just expands monogamy to polygamy in a sense).

Trying to meet half way is like jumping half way across a chasm; there's nothing to stand on in the middle.

you're definitely correct about the 1st half of that sentence. for the 2nd half, you build a bridge -- which is what i'm attempting to do here.

Originally Posted by Ent

I'm not saying that it's black and white in a moral sense, but that there's no middle ground. You can't really have half a marriage, you either say that such and such can marry or they cannot marry.

or.. you notice that traditional monogamous marriage hasn't really been around all that long (historically speaking), so from that perspective it's short on tradition. then you account for other humans that need love, affection, & may want formal stability that's granted unflinchingly to the rest of us. then you consider how fair, right, moral, etc. that is, & if some middle ground may not be such an awful idea after all. ?

Extremists of many positions will kill for their beliefs.

what i wonder is exactly how many degrees are we away from these scary individuals when holding fast to our beliefs causes someone to suffer? no, you're not killing a gay person when you say s/he can't marry. yet causing them to suffer? definitely.

moderate environmental activists tend to ignore the fact that their proposed "save the planet" changes would leave many of the poorest in society without adequate food or heating.

ot, but i'm curious about this & would appreciate an explanation here !

[Ent]

Originally Posted by nittiley

well, you've just terminated all my hopes & beliefs in the flexibility of youth ! and.. i thought if we managed this, we could compromise on abortion too.

What's to compromise? You can murder some people but not others?
Some people debate by starting at the extreme end of their position, and are willing to make concessions or compromises until they come to the place they actually believe in. I don't; I start exactly where I think the facts and logic supports, and I don't move unless I encounter a genuinely valid point that I haven't considered before. Compromise from that position is dishonest.

i'd venture that there isn't room for compromise only if you've got that idea cemented in your cranium

No, there isn't room for compromise because of what the issue is. There was one aspect that might have held: the whole "distinguish legal civil unions from social or religious marriages" as proposed by Wendy (Though in every case of a civil union type structure, homosexual and liberal lobbies have merely continued to put pressure for a complete redefinition of marriage.) But in general, it's not an analogue issue. It's not like negotiating house prices or borders on a country, where you can go up a bit or down a bit. Either X group of people can marry, or they cannot marry.

which is exactly why i positioned it the way i did. the idea wasn't for you to stop defending your beliefs, or give up your beliefs. we were to set some sort of global policy, unfettered about the necessity of being re-elected (like politicians are). there would be elements each of us didn't particularly like or personally agree with (me --> promotion of one coupling, formal & legalised monogamy, set forth as society's *ideal* / you --> allowing traditional marriage to include non-traditional participants).

I don't want to be a politician. Popularity will never be more important to me than truth and reason. Seriously though, do you expect anyone to accept that you care about what marriage is when you need to compromise before it's even a formal, legal, or monogamous relationship?

in essence, you apply a binary mindset to tackle the problem because you're working with another person (me) to make some cohesion out of 2 groups that want 2 different goals settled (& i'll add with 2 entirely different perspectives --> the civil rights, & definition-of-marriage aspects.

That's not really how a debate works. You don't lay out the battle lines, and then accept that you'll meet half way in the middle. After all, to quote Mr. Dawkins, "It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

concur . when people have different ethics (& i'll add that are correct & moral in each person's viewpoint), what do you do? simply allow the majority to rule because they're the majority? that isn't a moral application.

Of course not. As well as being unethical, that would also be an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. It's possible for lots of people to simply be wrong too. You're asking for some pretty complex philosophy there. Essentially the principle is that morality must be relative, and if you really want to investigate it have a look at Proffessor Noggle's essay here.
This bit is particularly good: "The reason that the premise does not prove the conclusion is that the mere fact of disagreement or diversity of opinion about something does not prove that everyone's opinion is correct. To see this, consider the following. Once upon a time, there was considerable disagreement about what the stars are. Some believed they were gods. Some thought they were campfires of people living in the sky. A very few suspected that they might be other suns. Now, the fact that there was disagreement did not make everyone's belief correct. There is just one true belief about stars, namely that they like the sun."

you're definitely correct about the 1st half of that sentence. for the 2nd half, you build a bridge -- which is what i'm attempting to do here.

But what is the point in building a bridge if neither wants to go to the other side?

ot, but i'm curious about this & would appreciate an explanation here !

If you insist, for example, on smacking a massive tax onto all fossil fuels to "save the planet", you can easily prevent the typical pensioner, already stretched financially as well as vulnerable to the cold, from heating their home, which could lead to their sickness or death. Of course that's not the intent, but it can be the outcome.

[NICK G]

Originally Posted by Blackmirror

There you are Nick

Now mums the word. I don't want any idiots following me. But you, my love, are always welcomed.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Ent

...........You're certainly onto something in pointing out that numbers do not win an argument (or don't prove the truth at least), whether they're big numbers or small ones.

I've never held much enthusiasm for the concept of the "wisdom of numbers (masses)".

Yet laws that reflect right or wrong in a moral sense (beyond the mere legalities) are more often than not the culmination of a society's (people's) traditional and historical deliberation on respective issues, and those deliberations having stretched over large amounts of time. Not an overnight process, so to speak, but an ongoing process with initiation rooted far in the past.

As such very sluggish but thankfully so, as radical (overnight) changes lacking such in debt deliberations are largely precluded.

Exception may seem to refute this but in their overall majority the German people, to cite a more prominent example, had more than just an uneasy feeling about something going terribly wrong in the time of '39 to '45. Radical change, initially supported by many for reasons both historical and psychological that I won't dwell on, had usurped the process of "long term developing values" to the point of rashly and brutally overturning the apple cart of an otherwise "cultured" civilization.

These "radicalities" always hold that danger to this very day, as only recently the Iraq foolishness has shown and as the mindless stereotyping of the Syrian situation is well on its way to being shown.

OTH giving women the vote (Switzerland was well on its way into the second half of the last century before it finally managed that), introduction of labor rights, abolishment of slavery in the West, curbing exploitation of the financially more dependent in general (even where far from optimum), all these were more or less lengthy processes and outcomes of long term and somewhat slower considerations.

Not so much "wisdom of the masses" but more "wisdom of the mass".

Taking homosexual acts out of the stigma of illegality was yet another one of these, as was distinguishing between the abortion of a fetus and the murder of another fellow human, at the same time allowing those in disagreement (and not necessarily solely and always out of religious motivations) to voice same disagreement without orchestrating their expedient demise as undesirable opposition, as more totalitarian systems were and still are prone to do.

The issue of SSM is IMO undergoing the same, somewhat more lengthy process and will eventually, in one way or the other, find implementation. But, last not least, because of the warning voices with more applied prudence than swift radical change would allow for.

If the Catholic church finds it within itself to actually clear Galileo's name after centuries and, more importantly, apologize to Jewry for subjecting it to centuries of hate filled doctrine based on historical falsifications, I guess everyone else can show a little patience.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Blackmirror

There you are Nick

I am for same sex marriage that is a recognised union.. its the 21st century after all
everyone has the right to spend their lives with the one they love.
Life is too short.

There's no preclusion on that anyway, this thread is about marriage.

[Ent]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Not so much "wisdom of the masses" but more "wisdom of the mass".

You mean, I assume, that society itself has a good deal of what physicists would call "inertia", it takes a great force to start it moving, and even that slowly.

Does it, in your opinion, work the other way too? Inertia, after all, both means that something is hard to get moving and that it's hard to stop or alter its motion once it's under way. If that is the case, it's an effect which isn't going to offer wisdom or stability at all, but would bulldoze all and any opposition to whatever happens to be a fashionable thing to think.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Ent

You mean, I assume, that society itself has a good deal of what physicists would call "inertia", it takes a great force to start it moving, and even that slowly.

well, not the best of my analogies, nor anyone else's for that matter, but it'll have to do right now.

"masses" always and probably unkindly makes me think of riff raff or the mob cited in my sig line, "mass" here would have me constituting society as a whole.

Does it, in your opinion, work the other way too? Inertia, after all, both means that something is hard to get moving and that it's hard to stop or alter its motion once it's under way. If that is the case, it's an effect which isn't going to offer wisdom or stability at all, but would bulldoze all and any opposition to whatever happens to be a fashionable thing to think.

I certainly see the danger of a perilous path being impossible to leave, but prefer to compare the process not so much to a bulldozer that has reached its top revs but to a stream that is slowly seeping towards expansion (rather than a flash flooding river).

Basically I hold all members of humanity to have more in common than what separates them and that the instances of radicalism that seem to disprove this (all at each other's throats) are historically too short lived to serve as proof to the opposite.

Voltaire's take of freedom always (also) being the freedom of the other one would have instantly withered, had there been no fertile ground in which to plant it. In other words he was expressing what was already felt by many, he didn't have to invent a new concept and in fact didn't.

And I actually don't hold the desire to afford gays marriage rights to be a current fashion fad, although one can't rule out that some work along those lines only. Rather I see it as another manifestation (aspect) of affording equality, an ambition as old as mankind (and its cycle of achievement and thwarting just as old).

But mankind being socio-politically and culturally as diverse as it is, a universal solution to fit all is a folly. We don't even have to engage Kipling's "East is East and West.................." to demonstrate, comparing two political state organization models like the US (church and state separated) and the UK (non separation) shows that disparity of consequences from a law touching both state institutions, need preclude any one-for-all "solution".

[Ent]

I certainly see the danger of a perilous path being impossible to leave, but prefer to compare the process not so much to a bulldozer that has reached its top revs but to a stream that is slowly seeping towards expansion (rather than a flash flooding river).

I don't necessarily mean that it's an inherently perilous path. I mean that once you get society started down a line, such as dealing with what is incorrectly termed homophobia, it can be hard to stop. Of course preventing bullying homosexuals is a good thing to do, but it drives on to things like letting homosexuals (¿or was it people with the opposite gender identity?) use the opposite gender toilet facilities.

Basically I hold all members of humanity to have more in common than what separates them and that the instances of radicalism that seem to disprove this (all at each other's throats) are historically too short lived to serve as proof to the opposite.

Of course they do, but that doesn't in itself make the things that separate them inconsequential. Even the Ted Bundy's of this world have more in common than different. And of course there are differences which are very useful; complementary personality traits for example. In both cases what is different still matters.

And I actually don't hold the desire to afford gays marriage rights to be a current fashion fad, although one can't rule out that some work along those lines only. Rather I see it as another manifestation (aspect) of affording equality, an ambition as old as mankind (and its cycle of achievement and thwarting just as old).

I think that for many it is just fashionable; particularly among politicians; but certainly not for all. Not popular, but fashionable.
I just don't see it as an issue of equality. The situation is equal even if not everyone wants (or biologically can want) what's offered. Insofar (such as for disabilities) as it is unequal, that is not our fault as much as it's the result of that biological or other trait causing the inability.
That a deaf person cannot enjoy a Beethoven symphony, though sad, doesn't make playing Beethoven discrimination against the deaf. If the stereotypical geek doesn't want to charge at people in a rugby game, that isn't discrimination. Nor if the stereotypical jock doesn't want to pit his wits against someone in a chess match.
As you rightly say, there is diversity and in many cases (disabilities generally excluded) it's a wonderful thing that there is. It's not discrimination to acknowledge that in some cases this diversity leads to differences in ability and differences in preference, and it is not discrimination to treat genuinely different people differently in accordance with their differences.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Ent

I don't necessarily mean that it's an inherently perilous path. I mean that once you get society started down a line, such as dealing with what is incorrectly termed homophobia, it can be hard to stop. Of course preventing bullying homosexuals is a good thing to do, but it drives on to things like letting homosexuals (¿or was it people with the opposite gender identity?) use the opposite gender toilet facilities.

Ha, having embarked upon this year's Europe tour on a strained back, French motorway stopping place lavatories (those that hold no restaurant facilities for instance) regularly induced me to go to the "ladies". I'm not prepared for the "a la turca" action (hole in the ground usage reserved for males there, with females afforded better comforts) at the best of times, but this time round would not have gotten up without the help of others. The funny look I got from both males and females was the least of my worries although if I'd dressed up in drag first, I might have alleviated the one or other concern

Of course they do, but that doesn't in itself make the things that separate them inconsequential. Even the Ted Bundy's of this world have more in common than different. And of course there are differences which are very useful; complementary personality traits for example. In both cases what is different still matters.

I'm not belittling differences or the consequences arising thereout, in the overall picture societies will come to a consensus on issues. Not an overall consensus, most likely, but one held by the vast majority. I might still consider the result (decision reached) as wrong, but I have to accept what has been decided. Accept as in live with it and hope for and work towards change, next time round or the time after.

I think that for many it is just fashionable; particularly among politicians; but certainly not for all. Not popular, but fashionable.

I'm personally not concerned with politicians, generally trusting none of them. Where they get on the boat to further either individual or their parties' interest, that's fine by me if I can exploit it towards what I hold to be "right" gaining greater impact. I hold the same contempt for certain "activisms", from profile neurotic supposed gay rights screamers to irresponsible (in their actions and disregard for possibly negative results) ecology fanatics.

That doesn't belittle their cause in my eyes, even where I hold them to be the worst possible proponents of a cause far worthier than they may be.

I just don't see it as an issue of equality. The situation is equal even if not everyone wants (or biologically can want) what's offered. Insofar (such as for disabilities) as it is unequal, that is not our fault as much as it's the result of that biological or other trait causing the inability.
That a deaf person cannot enjoy a Beethoven symphony, though sad, doesn't make playing Beethoven discrimination against the deaf.

We can go on the analogy circuit til the cows come here but I'll bite (again) in that denying the hearing aid, however, would.

If the stereotypical geek doesn't want to charge at people in a rugby game, that isn't discrimination. Nor if the stereotypical jock doesn't want to pit his wits against someone in a chess match.

Here I think we need distinguish between "want" and "can". Inasmuch as the geek be afforded the possibility to learn rugby and train for it and the jock to equally learn chess. If they then choose to take neither opportunity because they don't want to (much as a gay male may toss up his nose at the idea of marriage) that's fine and they can all stop griping.

As you rightly say, there is diversity and in many cases (disabilities generally excluded) it's a wonderful thing that there is. It's not discrimination to acknowledge that in some cases this diversity leads to differences in ability and differences in preference, and it is not discrimination to treat genuinely different people differently in accordance with their differences.

Tis indeed not. Refusing them rights that they could observe and that are the same rights as for others, however, is.

[NICK G]

"The masses" can not come to terms on definitions or even what's happening to the human species.
Is one born gay? If that is natural then it naturally follows gays should marry gays. Natural?
When does life begin? Ask a pro-life or pro-choice advocate and they certainly won't agree. Natural?
Do guns kill people? Do people kill people? Naturally, people kill with bullets fired from guns. Natural?
I, one of the masses, love to see 2 chicks lip-locked, understand guy/girl lip-locked, but 2 guys lip-locked? Not natural.
Why? Because it's new and different? Naw. Been going on for many, many years. My mind just won't/can't accept it.
These debates will continue to rock well after I'm dead along with........
do I take 83mg aspirin a day for heart control. No, I take 325mg because they are affordable and in great supply.
4 aspirins will stop my headache where 18 tylenol or ibuprophen will not. Is that natural?
We all may be the same in so many respects but also different in the same but opposite respects.
Is natural really natural at all? Naturally.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by NICK G

........................do I take 83mg aspirin a day for heart control. No, I take 325mg because they are affordable and in great supply..............

take 83 mg. The additional 241n mg are as useless in keeping you blood at a less clot-able level as an oversupply of Vitamic C (ascorbic acid) is to general health. Apart from which they'll aggravate your stomach walls as Vit. C will your kidneys.

As to headaches...........serves you right for being in here

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by Ent

What's to compromise? You can murder some people but not others?

my compromise for abortion would have been 3rd trimester bans, with firm provisions that the camel was not allowed to go any further past that tent flap. also, exceptions allowed where warranted, with a panel of (pre-screened for bias) peers to assess the situation & be able to over-ride the legislation.

that's for the (likely few) areas where, say a woman has twins & both will die unless 1 is aborted, life of the woman is at stake, et al.

Some people debate by starting at the extreme end of their position, and are willing to make concessions or compromises until they come to the place they actually believe in. I don't; I start exactly where I think the facts and logic supports, and I don't move unless I encounter a genuinely valid point that I haven't considered before. Compromise from that position is dishonest.

one of your valid points was tradition though!

look @ tradition here in the states today. most people are going to cook meat to the point it becomes carcinogenic & eat it. tonnes of fireworks were imported from china (& while i'm all for trade, we're running an extreme deficit there). celebrating your country is a fine & lovely tradition, but some of these traditions are heavily tinged with irony & rather useless.

given how so many here are enamoured with all things u.k., it's a bit silly there too. we have a fair amount of newscasters with british accents because market research showed people will tune in & pay more attention when they hear one.

so why not scrap the aspects of tradition that are outmoded & retain the better parts, with marriage (or anything else)?

No, there isn't room for compromise because of what the issue is. There was one aspect that might have held: the whole "distinguish legal civil unions from social or religious marriages" as proposed by Wendy (Though in every case of a civil union type structure, homosexual and liberal lobbies have merely continued to put pressure for a complete redefinition of marriage.) But in general, it's not an analogue issue. It's not like negotiating house prices or borders on a country, where you can go up a bit or down a bit. Either X group of people can marry, or they cannot marry.

ent, really, what is the difference except the label that will be pasted on it? if gay marriages are allowed, but everyone goes to grand lengths to say "it's not genuinely a marriage, only heterosexual unions are the true marriages," & gay marriages are termed "legal, civil unions, but not marriages" -- it's still the same thing! they're still (legally) committed couples/partners/spouses.

I don't want to be a politician. Popularity will never be more important to me than truth and reason.

nor i!
on the latter !

Seriously though, do you expect anyone to accept that you care about what marriage is when you need to compromise before it's even a formal, legal, or monogamous relationship?

i care about removing the useless detritus from any situation , whether it involves marriage, relationships, anything. i don't take what previous humans have dictated as so sacred, since i believe the situations themselves will bear out legitimacy, sacredness, validity, etc. (regardless of what the collective opinion of society is, or was).

that's exactly why it was a major concession on my part to promote monogamous, legally binding agreements for society in general. as always, exceptions granted when justified. although my hope was for more open mindedness eventually, which would dispel the need to grant exceptions anyway.

That's not really how a debate works. You don't lay out the battle lines, and then accept that you'll meet half way in the middle. After all, to quote Mr. Dawkins, "It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

understood . since we debated up & down, inside & out, & around enough for us to have created a veritable centrifuge.. i thought another challenge wasn't such a poor idea . anyone that can play mastermind (good grief, algorithms!! ) should be a little bit bored after so much of the previous, no?

Of course not. As well as being unethical, that would also be an "appeal to popularity" fallacy.

since when is it popular to support minorities?

try this experiment i mentioned previously. next family gathering, announce that you're supporting gay marriage, yet all of your other beliefs remain steadfast. note the reaction..i guarantee you will not be popular ! & don't try this at church.. at least with family, you can explain it originated from someone on a debate thread. (i know you're not doing this.. was just making a point !)

It's possible for lots of people to simply be wrong too.

always! (one of the few absolutes, perhaps?)

You're asking for some pretty complex philosophy there. Essentially the principle is that morality must be relative, and if you really want to investigate it have a look at Proffessor Noggle's essay here.

will check it out

This bit is particularly good: "The reason that the premise does not prove the conclusion is that the mere fact of disagreement or diversity of opinion about something does not prove that everyone's opinion is correct. To see this, consider the following. Once upon a time, there was considerable disagreement about what the stars are. Some believed they were gods. Some thought they were campfires of people living in the sky. A very few suspected that they might be other suns. Now, the fact that there was disagreement did not make everyone's belief correct. There is just one true belief about stars, namely that they like the sun."

& once upon a time, when my grandmother grew up, these situations existed:

a region with kind, well-intentioned people, yet with all sorts of 'cold wars' going on, within families & throughout the region.

1) racial/cultural -- alleged superior & varying degrees of inferior races & cultures. anyone outside of our background was deemed a “foreigner” even though, technically, we were foreign imports & not aboriginals

2) religious -- protestants vs. catholics. some people refused to sit next to each other on public transport. intermarriage between two slightly differing religions (both christian!) was treated as scandalous. the extremely rare inter-racial marriage was cause for shunning/disowning

3) homosexual people didn’t even pepper the conversational landscape because they were apparently submerged. they simply didn’t ‘exist.’

this is what i adore about science.. if something doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, off it goes! none of the above would last for more than a micro-second if scientific principles were able to be applied to those situations. considering someone a foreigner when you are also a foreigner is pointless – you’re announcing differences where there are basically none.

But what is the point in building a bridge if neither wants to go to the other side?

because we're striving for fairness & justness. because it isn't fair for me to say, "ent, you're bloody wrong because i don't share your beliefs." i have to, & want to, have consideration for your morals -- & include them . to do otherwise would be bias on my part. maybe this all drives around to selfishness, but i feel better accepting your beliefs to a degree, without casting mine aside. that inclusiveness & respect resonates in an area where i (want to say know) it's right.

If you insist, for example, on smacking a massive tax onto all fossil fuels to "save the planet", you can easily prevent the typical pensioner, already stretched financially as well as vulnerable to the cold, from heating their home, which could lead to their sickness or death. Of course that's not the intent, but it can be the outcome.

point well taken, yet why wouldn't any decent society exempt seniors, children, & anyone unable to provide the basics from themselves from such a tax? furthermore, why would a government allow a private entity to inflict such misery without some kind of channels to prevent, or steer, the situation to a more ethically & environmentally friendly direction (blending fuels & eventually converting to a different source, etc.) --without allowing some pensioner to freeze?


nickG mentions something that, for lack of a better term, i'll call flexi-bias.

Originally Posted by NICK G

I, one of the masses, love to see 2 chicks lip-locked, understand guy/girl lip-locked, but 2 guys lip-locked? Not natural.
Why? Because it's new and different? Naw. Been going on for many, many years. My mind just won't/can't accept it

on a few occasions, i've asked a couple blokes (ones i knew well enough to ask), why they didn't have a problem (to put it mildly) seeing women together, but it was a revulsion for them with men? didn't get much of a concrete answer; it was mainly some variation of, "um, well, their bodies are so soft" etc.

it's almost that nimby principle -- not in my backyard!

ok, back to fossil fuels. just kidding , i know we must stay mainly on topic while on the thread.. although i'm making my own case for needing another contro thread topic! what else are you against? )

[valis]

Originally Posted by NICK G

"The masses" can not come to terms on definitions or even what's happening to the human species.
Is one born gay? If that is natural then it naturally follows gays should marry gays. Natural?
When does life begin? Ask a pro-life or pro-choice advocate and they certainly won't agree. Natural?
Do guns kill people? Do people kill people? Naturally, people kill with bullets fired from guns. Natural?
I, one of the masses, love to see 2 chicks lip-locked, understand guy/girl lip-locked, but 2 guys lip-locked? Not natural.
Why? Because it's new and different? Naw. Been going on for many, many years. My mind just won't/can't accept it.
These debates will continue to rock well after I'm dead along with........
do I take 83mg aspirin a day for heart control. No, I take 325mg because they are affordable and in great supply.
4 aspirins will stop my headache where 18 tylenol or ibuprophen will not. Is that natural?
We all may be the same in so many respects but also different in the same but opposite respects.
Is natural really natural at all? Naturally.

I think 'the masses' are best left alone with nothing more dangerous than, say, a blankie.

[Ent]

one of your valid points was tradition though!

look @ tradition here in the states today. most people are going to cook meat to the point it becomes carcinogenic & eat it. tonnes of fireworks were imported from china (& while i'm all for trade, we're running an extreme deficit there). celebrating your country is a fine & lovely tradition, but some of these traditions are heavily tinged with irony & rather useless.

given how so many here are enamoured with all things u.k., it's a bit silly there too. we have a fair amount of newscasters with british accents because market research showed people will tune in & pay more attention when they hear one.

so why not scrap the aspects of tradition that are outmoded & retain the better parts, with marriage (or anything else)?

It is a good point, but it isn't conclusive. Traditions can be changed and some should. You have to make a positive argument on a case by case basis.

ent, really, what is the difference except the label that will be pasted on it? if gay marriages are allowed, but everyone goes to grand lengths to say "it's not genuinely a marriage, only heterosexual unions are the true marriages," & gay marriages are termed "legal, civil unions, but not marriages" -- it's still the same thing! they're still (legally) committed couples/partners/spouses.

It's not just a label; it's saying that the government can give civil partnerships and these carry all the tax breaks, divorce law issues, etc. The social or religious aspects are framed separately in a marriage which doesn't need changing, with some system to ensure married spouses are also civil partners. This would also handle problems such as not compelling churches to marry homosexual couples against the dictates of their religion; they don't deal with civil partnerships.

that's exactly why it was a major concession on my part to promote monogamous, legally binding agreements for society in general. as always, exceptions granted when justified. although my hope was for more open mindedness eventually, which would dispel the need to grant exceptions anyway.

In other words, you think it's a concession that marriage is only redefined from
a monogamous, hetrosexual, lifelong union
to
a monogamous lifelong union
instead of
a union.
Sorry, not biting.

since when is it popular to support minorities?

Count the people arguing here? It seems very popular these days. Though actually, the appeal to popularity is just saying "people believe it, therefore it's true". It doesn't necessarily require that an idea is popular (well liked) per say.

& once upon a time, when my grandmother grew up, these situations existed:

a region with kind, well-intentioned people, yet with all sorts of 'cold wars' going on, within families & throughout the region.

1) racial/cultural -- alleged superior & varying degrees of inferior races & cultures. anyone outside of our background was deemed a “foreigner” even though, technically, we were foreign imports & not aboriginals

2) religious -- protestants vs. catholics. some people refused to sit next to each other on public transport. intermarriage between two slightly differing religions (both christian!) was treated as scandalous. the extremely rare inter-racial marriage was cause for shunning/disowning

3) homosexual people didn’t even pepper the conversational landscape because they were apparently submerged. they simply didn’t ‘exist.’

this is what i adore about science.. if something doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, off it goes! none of the above would last for more than a micro-second if scientific principles were able to be applied to those situations. considering someone a foreigner when you are also a foreigner is pointless – you’re announcing differences where there are basically none.

Be careful, science isn't quite as rigorous as you may think. It's just human investigation after all. Seriously though, your presentation is very superficial there, and the issues are legitimately more complex. I could rant on for hours about the Catholic one for example. While I'd sit next to a Hindu on a bus, I wouldn't marry one; and it is possible to make a theological case that Catholic and protestant theology is incompatible to the point of at least one being heretical. If you hold to that, "both christian!" doesn't mean very much. Even cultural superiority can be defensible. It's not very fashionable to say so, and you certainly do have to be careful, but you can say that in some aspects one culture is better than another. Development Economists do it all the time, such as pointing out that relatively rich oil states are severely lacking in the human rights department.

ent, you're * wrong

That's a perfectly fair statement. I could be wrong.

because i don't share your beliefs.

OK, that's not a very good reason for said fair statement, though if you had good reasons for not sharing my beliefs then you'd have good reasons for saying they were wrong.
You're the one who said how great science is because it's corrective; you can't correct something unless it's absolutely wrong. That's what the link I gave you was talking about.

ok, back to fossil fuels. just kidding , i know we must stay mainly on topic while on the thread.. although i'm making my own case for needing another contro thread topic! what else are you against?

I'm neither necessarily against fossil fuels or necessarily for them; I do think it's important to consider everyone's views on an issue, and not elevate one person or entity to such a level that no-one else matters. Even if that's Earth.

[NICK G]

Originally Posted by nittiley

my compromise for abortion would have been 3rd trimester bans,

Mine is 1st trimester with exceptions, of course. My brother, a catholic, says none is ever justified. To each their own.
All will be confirmed and straightened out now that the 'God Particle' may have been found today.
The Higgs boson should explain it all. Of course it didn't explain to the idiots that said these collisions will form a
black hole and suck us all into nothingness. I think I'm still here but may just be in the matrix and not reality at all.