[Blackmirror]

Originally Posted by NICK G

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.

When you get sucked in call round mine
take me with you

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by Ent

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.

which i believe i did.. refresher --> by allowing them to marry, which also places society's stamp of accepting them for who they are, you cease causing them suffering. you will indirectly prevent abuse against them as well. if they live as partners, they should, by rights, be extended benefits that other heterosexual partners can readily obtain. they're going to live together regardless.. in the same manner heterosexual couples do all the time & without necessarily getting married.

abortion may need case-by-case evaluation in places, but allowing gay marriage doesn't.

an aside --> i forgot to mention my 3rd trimester concession necessitated evidence that any future children would be provided for in all aspects of life. i didn't get as far as securing funding & nurturing humans though.. either from anyone that is pro-life, or a tax on everyone. ?? & could volunteers be expected in a weak economy for the nurturing? people are already pushed to limits, so it seems more fair to have some type of paid, reformed foster care.. which would still require funding.

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.

some individual states here still have 'common law' marrriages where, after so many years of cohabitation, it is recognised as a marriage for tax purposes:

A common-law marriage is recognized for federal tax purposes if it is recognized by the state where the taxpayers currently live, or in the state where the common-law marriage began. If the marriage is recognized under the law and customs of the state in which the marriage takes place (even if the state is a foreign country), the marriage is valid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-..._United_States

if gay people are living the exact same way, again, i don't see any difference that they are also not married in every sense of the word. or why they shouldn't be able to officially get married, if they live as a married couple regardless?

laws can certainly be written up to exclude churches from marrying them. that's a minor detail, & there isn't any point in inflating it in order to turn it into a roadblock.

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.

you don't have to bite anything . i must not have explained properly what my views are (& with all this blather, i can't imagine how that didn't get said at least 8 times! ). it would be a huge concession on my part to promote 1 faction's ideal for couples, especially when it's fraught with legal complications & societal expectations. most especially when i see scant evidence of it working!! anything with a 50%ish failure rate isn't stellar, wouldn't you agree?

promoting traditional marriage as the solution for all couples is the equivalent of reading of princess story to a little girl, with the message being, "someday your prince will come & you will live happily ever after." that is such a load!!

more realistically it should be --> hopefully you will meet 1 special person that seems appropriate to exclusively spend the rest of your life with. this may, or may not happen. it will take an enormous amount of effort on both of your parts to make it work, if it does happen. all the while, life can hit you with some tragedies, some of which will make sustaining a marriage impossible. best luck & hope for a good outcome!

Count the people arguing here? It seems very popular these days.

we're a little microcosm here though

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.

regarding politics, that's exactly how it works. semi-truths & outright fabrications are repeated endlessly until people believe them. we've opted out of being politicians here, no?

Be careful, science isn't quite as rigorous as you may think. It's just human investigation after all.

i know it isn't flawless.. & i don't want you to take offense with this, but it does a much better job than religion. religion just says you have to agree because we said so. we said so because someone else said so & wrote it down. no arguments, dissent, or critical thinking allowed! alterations will take centuries before they're permitted.. (& as far as adaptation, religion is like a dinosaur compared to a science racehorse!).

Seriously though, your presentation is very superficial there, and the issues are legitimately more complex.

agreed

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.

odd you chose an example with human rights, because that is the most defining aspect of this. marriage rights are granted to one group of humans while excluding another group. & it all boils down to how one person joins up with another! honestly, is it such a deal to get upset about? right now, somewhere, some gay people are having at it. so are millions of other people!! so what? let them, as long as they aren't harming anyone (which they aren't! don't make anyone suffer unnecessarily.. don't shame innocent children by calling them a derogatory curse word if their parents aren't married. don't tell gay people their partnerships are *less than* anyone else's. is this so difficult to manage? will it really twist everyone up that much?

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

well, i've never been wrong . (that was fun to say! ) i'm wrong many times, but that doesn't necessarily mean i am on this matter.

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.

you're too intelligent & logical for this aberration. i'll grab the fossil fuel analogy --> autos were invented & petrol was refined; it worked fine for a spell. eventually there was too much CO2 & it became wrong to follow a trajectory where we would pollute our planet & selves to extinction. corrective measures trickled in. autos & petrol never were "absolutely wrong;" it isn't wrong if i use my car to drive to the doctor's office today or tomorrow. yet we've corrected them to a degree; my car is more fuel efficient than autos from 30 years ago & i use a blended fuel.

That's what the link I gave you was talking about.

good link

i don't see how i can be using moral relativism (& correct me please if needed) because that article states,

Moral relativism does not just say that people's and cultures' moral beliefs differ; it goes on to say that all of these differing moral beliefs are true

1) i have a "no harm" clause that applies to everyone's moral beliefs
2) i posit there can be some truths in all peoples' belief systems. note "can be" & "some"

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.

did you ever hear the expression (i'll have to sanitize it), 'you can't use your dinner table as a toilet?' that said, i agree consideration of others' views are important & necessary. which i why i think we should try to strike a compromise (no worries, it doesn't appear that is going to happen , unless you surprise me. i don't believe i'm in for any surprises here..

for what this worth in reiteration, buffoon's gold nugget of wisdom about flexibility is worth your consideration. it's one of those things that will sneak up on you & bite you on the backside if you ignore it! from a very good bit of what i've seen, those that don't figure out how to bend, end up with a break, so to speak.

that isn't said to force you to compromise on this, or any other issue you feel strongly about. we'll be fine with ent @ point A, & nittiley @ point B, but the previous is still something to bear in mind for other times .

Originally Posted by NICK G

All will be confirmed and straightened out now that the 'God Particle' may have been found today.
The Higgs boson should explain it all.

better yet:

.. as it could point the way to new, deeper ideas, beyond the Standard Model, about the nature of reality.'

Maria Spiropulu...said: 'I personally do not want it to be standard model anything — I don’t want it to be simple or symmetric or as predicted. I want us all to have been dealt a complex hand that will send me (and all of us) in a (good) loop for a long time.' Nima Arkani-Hamed...said: 'It’s a triumphant day for fundamental physics. Now some fun begins.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/sc...e.html?_r=1&hp

[nittiley]

ent.. are you taking a bit of a breather, did we wrap it up here, or..?

-----
some controversy sparking articles showed up!

Today, millions of Americans expect that their religious beliefs entitle them to special privileges...

One of the most important of these expected privileges is the privilege to require non-believers to behave like believers: e.g., prohibiting liquor sales on Sunday; prohibiting nude sun-bathing on beaches. Religious people also tend to feel that they should be protected from the behavior of non-believers—for example, from seeing condoms advertised on TV.

But it’s much worse than that. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...igious-freedom

------

and this!!

Morality sometimes claims too much of us. There is always something more you could be doing to make the world a better place, more help to give a friend, another good cause to support.

Knowing that you have failed to fully live up to the ethical life leaves the silt of self-recrimination. By being less than you think you ought to be — that is, less than perfect — you can feel guilty and maybe even ashamed, emotions which, when unchecked, make living the moral life less likely, not more. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...s-be-bad-thing

what the..?!

ps) i also have a good bullying article i'll pm for you. if you wanted those pasted on your thread, let me know!

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by nittiley

ent.. are you taking a bit of a breather, did we wrap it up here, or..?

-----
some controversy sparking articles showed up!



------

and this!!



what the..?!

ps) i also have a good bullying article i'll pm for you. if you wanted those pasted on your thread, let me know!

Originally Posted by from the quoted article

Today, millions of Americans expect that their religious beliefs entitle them to special privileges...

One of the most important of these expected privileges is the privilege to require non-believers to behave like believers

Are you implying that religious people are bullying non-religious people??!!

[Ent]

I would take two issues with that article.
The first is that, in some things, the things that religious people protest against are of little consequence to anyone who isn't a believer that it should be basic decency to respect them. For example, I would consider blasphemy to be deeply offensive. Someone who isn't a Christian would think little or nothing of the name of Jesus. Why should they use it, knowing that it can only offend, as a swear word?

More commonly, they're champion a cause which is not so much a religious issue per se as a moral one. Abortion is perhaps the best current example. Bringing about the end of the slave trade would have been another very good one. For people like Wilberforce and John Newton, religious arguments certainly played a part in their motivation to free who they saw as other men created in the image of God. Yet it would be a mistake to say that the whole abolitionist movement was "cramming their religion down our throats", the philosophical, social, and moral arguments against slavery could stand on their own.
"Sexual expression" is as absurd a phrase as I ever did encounter; as though it were an issue of free speech or somesuch. Even there the "don't do that" rules are often championed primarily to protect others including husbands & wives, teenagers and children.

And yes, I've been away. I'm concentrating on building a website in languages I've never used before, and that's not proving easy.

[pyritechips]

When people, who are religiously motivated, actively lobby to enact a law that prohibits women from choosing what they do with their bodies constitutes forcing a religious belief upon others. That violates religious freedom, and more importantly, my right to freedom from religion.

[Ent]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

When people, who are religiously motivated, actively lobby to enact a law that prohibits women from choosing what they do with their bodies constitutes forcing a religious belief upon others. That violates religious freedom, and more importantly, my right to freedom from religion.

When people are religiously motivated to actively lobby against keeping other human beings as property and selling them, does that violate your religious freedom or freedom from religion?

[pyritechips]

That is logically incorrect. Preventing people from being sold and kept as property is a moral issue, not a religious one. I am not religious but I am moral. To prevent slavery one does not need to be religiously motivated; one needs only to have a good moral code. In your example being religious is irrelevant.

[Ent]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

That is logically incorrect. Preventing people from being sold and kept as property is a moral issue, not a religious one. I am not religious but I am moral. To prevent slavery one does not need to be religiously motivated; one needs only to have a good moral code. In your example being religious is irrelevant.

Saving lives is a moral issue.
Arguing that 14 year old kids shouldn't be exposed to hideous online pornography is a moral issue.
Did I not say

More commonly, they're champion a cause which is not so much a religious issue per se as a moral one.

?

[buffoon]

Getting to be a bit of an apples and orange game, eh wot?

When a society as a whole slowly gets around to seeing a certain behavior/attitude as wrong and thus requiring correction, I'd say that any effort towards achieving the latter goal will, in the end effect, be welcome, the doctrine it's rooted in playing a secondary role. In other words coming at it even from totally different points of the compass is less important than aiming at the same gain.

When one part of society attempts to superimpose its own doctrine upon the other we have trouble. Especially when that kind of activity is precluded by constitutional law. Where the goal is not the same, indeed opposed by those its trying to be imposed upon, we deviate from the common ideal named in the above paragraph.

[Ent]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Getting to be a bit of an apples and orange game, eh wot?

What do you mean by this?

When a society as a whole slowly gets around to seeing a certain behavior/attitude as wrong and thus requiring correction, I'd say that any effort towards achieving the latter goal will, in the end effect, be welcome, the doctrine it's rooted in playing a secondary role. In other words coming at it even from totally different points of the compass is less important than aiming at the same gain.

I agree. And it works fine when the right/accepted thing is popular. The problem is that for issues such as I referred to, it isn't popular, or isn't popular among the right people.

When one part of society attempts to superimpose its own doctrine upon the other we have trouble. Especially when that kind of activity is precluded by constitutional law. Where the goal is not the same, indeed opposed by those its trying to be imposed upon, we deviate from the common ideal named in the above paragraph.

But not all ideals are common, and some more would be save for a vested interest in the outcome. What if it's a feminist lobby attempting to superimpose their own doctrine, for want of a better word? Or a homosexual lobby? It goes both ways, and what do you get if there are plenty of (voting, adult) people going on about the rights of a woman but no-one says to spare a thought for the child? What do you get if heed is only paid to the tiny vocal minority of homosexuals and no-one says to take a step back and consider the consequences? Those groups can hardly be considered to have less of a vested interest in the result, nor trusted to deal with the issue any more fairly.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Ent

Saving lives is a moral issue.
Arguing that 14 year old kids shouldn't be exposed to hideous online pornography is a moral issue.
Did I not say

?

I agree. Saving lives is a moral issue. Abortion is a religiously motivated issue.

Originally Posted by Ent

What do you mean by this?




I agree. And it works fine when the right/accepted thing is popular. The problem is that for issues such as I referred to, it isn't popular, or isn't popular among the right people.


But not all ideals are common, and some more would be save for a vested interest in the outcome. What if it's a feminist lobby attempting to superimpose their own doctrine, for want of a better word? Or a homosexual lobby? It goes both ways, and what do you get if there are plenty of (voting, adult) people going on about the rights of a woman but no-one says to spare a thought for the child? What do you get if heed is only paid to the tiny vocal minority of homosexuals and no-one says to take a step back and consider the consequences? Those groups can hardly be considered to have less of a vested interest in the result, nor trusted to deal with the issue any more fairly.

I don't understand your point. Who are the right people?

[Ent]

I don't understand your point. Who are the right people?

I basically mean the people with sufficient power and influence to change something. Referring back to my earlier example, freedom may have been massively popular with the slaves but they couldn't do a lot about it.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Ent

I basically mean the people with sufficient power and influence to change something. Referring back to my earlier example, freedom may have been massively popular with the slaves but they couldn't do a lot about it.

That is an interesting point. The slaves were freed in America a long time ago by the people with influence and power but the common citizen still thought of the slaves as slaves. Legislation is not always embraced by the people.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Ent

What do you mean by this?

In my take, I demonstrated sufficiently in what followed.

I agree. And it works fine when the right/accepted thing is popular. The problem is that for issues such as I referred to, it isn't popular, or isn't popular among the right people.

It isn't popular amongst most people, seems more likely the issue. But I was addressing your #800 (should have quoted it) wrt "welcoming" any help in addressing a commonly perceived wrong, irrespective of in what doctrine that perception is lodged.

But not all ideals are common, and some more would be save for a vested interest in the outcome. What if it's a feminist lobby attempting to superimpose their own doctrine, for want of a better word? Or a homosexual lobby? It goes both ways, and what do you get if there are plenty of (voting, adult) people going on about the rights of a woman but no-one says to spare a thought for the child? What do you get if heed is only paid to the tiny vocal minority of homosexuals and no-one says to take a step back and consider the consequences? Those groups can hardly be considered to have less of a vested interest in the result, nor trusted to deal with the issue any more fairly.

The issue I was (trying) addressing was constitutional law allowing or forbidding either the imposition from one group upon the other or vice versa. That can/could work out as a minority shoving it upon the majority or the other way round. Outside of which I hold it to be any group's right to try and influence "the others" towards sharing that group's conviction/attitude/perception more. But the method is what makes the fine distinctive line between influencing and superimposing.

I hold the analogy made to be unfortunate. Opposing slavery on religious grounds or from other grounds of equally moral roots does not equate to opposing SSM on the very same grounds. To believe that, one would have to make the vying for SSM by those wishing to participate in it as despicable as vying for (upkeep or re-introduction) of slavery.

And I'm beginning to perceive a chain of rather unfortunate equations in which a tendency can be seen to throw the proposition (support) of SSM into equally despicable categories, with the potential benefactors somewhat getting showered as well.

We've had greater promiscuity, pedophilia, the general incapacity for keeping a long lasting relationship, and an exponentially greater tendency towards HIV infection and now it gets thrown in with slavery.

That doesn't do the cause you're arguing much good on here or, I'd wager, anywhere else amongst people of reason.