WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Laws are generally a reflection of a society's sense of morality. It is reasonable to increase safety on the highways with laws regulating the side of the road one must drive on and a maximum speed at which it is legal to travel.

It is reasonable to have laws making it illegal to steal or lie under oath or compromise the value of your neighbor's property or the legal age at which children should be able to do certain things adults can do or that property deeds must be recorded before they are valid, etc.

Even though such laws fulfill a purely practical purpose, they can always be defined under a sense of right and wrong, justice or injustice, fairness vs unfairness, good vs evil.

Good laws always apply equally to everybody using the exact same criteria to determine who is and who is not affected by the laws. Currently the marriage laws reflect the general sense of morality of the majority of Americans respective to marriage, and each state applies identical criteria to all citizens. Everybody plays by the exact same rules.

Good legislators do not change laws based on the whims or dislikes of any special group who doesn't want to play by the rules. Bad legislators who can be bought and sold push policies/laws to win votes.

Personally, I think we have far too few good legislators and too many bad legislators lately on both sides of the aisle. I would like for us to focus on voting in more of the good guys and voting out more of the bad guys.

When that is done, I think we'll see legislation that will help out gay people and anybody else who do not wish to or cannot marry form themselves into family groups affording necessary benefits.

Meanwhile, don't look for the national moral sense of what marriage is to materially change in the near future.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is no inherent advantage to a moral structure that is built upon logic and sound arguments, over one that is not?

Your question implies a statement of fact that I disagree with: that moral structures that stand in opposition to gay marriage necessarily lack logic and sound arguments. I would have said the main difference is, not in the logic, but in the axioms and definitions that the logic and the arguments proceed from. If you study Catholic theology from Aquinas to Ratzinger a little, you will find them as logical as any of their competition. But they start from axioms you don't accept, such as "a human life begins at conception", and "a marriage is between one man and one woman, by definition." Sure, they can't proove that this is true -- but then again, you can't prove that people have equal rights, either.

I don't have a problem with arguments against Gay Marriage that are built upon logic, but it is quite rare to see them and you certainly don't see them on A2K.

I understand the difference between axiomatic views, but isn't a tautology a disqualification of one's views? You can't say 'The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's the defintion of marriage' and expect people to take that as a serious logical argument.

Religious logic tends to lead to expressions such as Anselm's Theorem, which has arguments going for it, but in the end is little more than a rhetorical trick used to justify a pre-held conclusion, and not a method for determining the truth of an issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I refuse to worry about who's in charge anymore... because really no one is... I'm just concentrating on making and salting away a shitload of cash again.... and if I do everything will be fine because that's what really makes thing run..... cash.

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and youre okay.
Money, its a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think Ill buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
Im all right jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, its a hit.
Dont give me that do goody good bullshit.
Im in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a lear jet.

Money, its a crime.
Share it fairly but dont take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise its no surprise that theyre
Giving none away.

...a sort of dismal outlook, if you're serious about it. I mean yeah, money's important. But to say "I don't give a **** about who's running things as long as I get mine" just seems sort of hopeless and narrow to me.

maybe so but it's true nonetheless. By the way boy, have a cigar, you're going to go far :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Laws are generally a reflection of a society's sense of morality.

It's a good think you said 'generally,' because it means you aren't neccessarily in error by ignoring the last 100 years of civil rights legistlation, which was most definately not a sense of the morality of society, but an understanding by the courts that the concept

Quote:

All men are created equal!

actually needs to mean something.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas, I completely agree with your logical argument. However I think that both you and Cyclo are missing the important point...

This is a political battle, not a legal one or a logical one. The battle will be one by the side that can muster the public support-- and whether logic helps at all in mustering public support is doubtful.

Thomas, your last point is a good one. The idea that humans have basic rights is an axiom that can not be proven. It has to be accepted.

My point however is that it is an axiom that is part of the foundations of America and certainly part of its history (this doesn't mean that the US has always followed it, but it has often moved in this direction).

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator certain unalieanable rights; and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Conservatives are against the rights and liberties that form the ideals and history of America.

A political point indeed, but one that I think should be discussed publically.

Those who believe in rights and liberty for all should vote against conservatives.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I understand the difference between axiomatic views, but isn't a tautology a disqualification of one's views?

Perhaps. Now how do you argue, tautology-free, that people have equal rights? Or that they even have a right to live?

0 Replies

Ebrown brings this up:

Quote:

Thomas, your last point is a good one. The idea that humans have basic rights is an axiom that can not be proven. It has to be accepted.

There are two stances that one can take in this discussion:

1. Humans are endowed with certain unalieanable rights

or

2. Humans are not endowed with certain unalienable rights.

In terms of society and the frameworks humans have developed for themselves, it seems that one conclusion provides at least the basics for a structure of interaction between humans, whereas the other one does not. It is no surprise that the vast majority of human societies - and certainly all the successful ones - have believed that there were inherent rights that must be respected by others and the state. It also provides a framework for our discussion, and conveinently matches up to the world and society in which we happen to live (the Constitution clearly states that this is the case, and we seem to respect that document pretty well).

The argument that people have equal rights is based upon the presumption that the vast majority of differences between people are superficial and not substantive. The original basis for this argument was no doubt directed at those who believed in a rigid class system, an artifact of European society and a peculiar idea indeed at the time, that people are in fact equal. But it is an idea that has held up to every scientific test that we can think of, and over time, has been broadened to include other differences than socio-economic.

That to me, is the test of whether people are equal or not - are the difference between people substantive, or not? Is homosexuality such a substantive difference that it makes people worthy of less rights? I think it is extremely difficult to make such an argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

This is a political battle, not a legal one or a logical one. The battle will be one by the side that can muster the public support-- and whether logic helps at all in mustering public support is doubtful.

It all depends on what you mean by "this". If "this" means the question, "do America's equal protection clauses and due process clauses protect a right to gay marriage?", then I disagree. This is a legal question, and in my opinion the answer is "no they don't." If "this" means the broader public debate about gay marriage, I agree. I even agree that gay marriage is good policy. That's why, in the last couple of elections, I supported a party whose leader is semi-openly gay, and that helped enact something like gay marriage in Germany. (Our constitution prohibits full gay marriage.) I agree this is a question of public support. The only problem is gay marriage doesn't have enough public support in America to happen. If it had, its activists wouldn't be turning to the courts.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote:

Laws are generally a reflection of a society's sense of morality. It is reasonable to increase safety on the highways with laws regulating the side of the road one must drive on and a maximum speed at which it is legal to travel.

Given the fact that every American diligently follows the speed limit...

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

That's why, in the last couple of elections, I supported a party whose leader is semi-openly gay, and that helped enact something like gay marriage in Germany.

[I'd thought, it had been various, different reasons - especially since his coming-out was only before the last election.]

---------------------

I'm not all well informed about 'human rights'/'equal rights' seen under American constitutonal law.

It's a lot easier here in Germany, since any question about that can be cleared by our Federal (or Stae, if it's about a state's constituton) Constitutional Court.

Thomas noticed already that "full" gay marriage would be unconstitutional.
(n the other hand, diabled can marriage here - which still is a crime in some US-states.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In terms of society and the frameworks humans have developed for themselves, it seems that one conclusion provides at least the basics for a structure of interaction between humans, whereas the other one does not.

Utilitarianism, as described in Bentham's Principles, denies the existence of inalienable human rights. Nevertheless, it provides a structure of interaction between humans. Ancient civilizations, from Hamurabi to Seneca, have not believed in the existence of inalienable human rights. Yet they, too, have developed structures of interactions between humans. Even absolute monarchy, built on the principle humans have no rights except those the king grants them, was a framework of interaction between humans. On the historical evidence, your statement is flatly wrong.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It is no surprise that the vast majority of human societies - and certainly all the successful ones - have believed that there were inherent rights that must be respected by others and the state.

Please cite to me where Ancient Egypt, the Chinese monarchy, the Persian Empire, the Republic of Athens, and the Roman Empire have declared their belief in inalienable human rights.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It also provides a framework for our discussion, and conveinently matches up to the world and society in which we happen to live (the Constitution clearly states that this is the case, and we seem to respect that document pretty well).

Tautology: constitutional principles deserve respect because the constitution says so.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The argument that people have equal rights is based upon the presumption that the vast majority of differences between people are superficial and not substantive.

That's 90% presumption, 10% argument -- even though I happen to agree with the presumption.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Please cite to me where Ancient Egypt, the Chinese monarchy, the Persian Empire, the Republic of Athens, and the Roman Empire have declared their belief in inalienable human rights.

It's centuries ago that I attended a Law History seminar at university.

Off the top of my head: Greece - the Stoics; Roman empire - jus gentium.

0 Replies

Hmm. Instead of 'inalienable rights,' it seems I should have said that the vast majority of societies have had some sort of structure of rights set up, with the exception of dictatorships and despotisms (such as ancient Egypt). You are correct that Utilitarianism substitutes the greater good for society over individual rights, but isn't that an expression that society itself has certain rights which supercede the individual, and therefore still an argument that there are some inherent rights - this time, on soceity's behalf?

Quote:

Tautology: constitutional principles deserve respect because the constitution says so.

Nah, they only deserve respect because they seem to have provided a stable and functional societal system for a goodish period of time now, and have been so successful that the principles have been adopted by much of the known world to one extent or the other.

This doesn't make them inherently right, or inherently deserve respect, but they do seem to have some weight of experience behind them.

Quote:

That's 90% presumption, 10% argument -- even though I happen to agree with the presumption.

Do we wish to include scientific evidence such as DNA? Becuase, there is a large amount of evidence that humans are all 99.98% identical at the fundamental level, despite phenotype expression. Which is a stronger argument than mere presumption, but I wasn't sure if we wanted to go into it.

PS, on topic, the Dems will win the house and pick up 2-3 seats in the Senate if things keep going the way they have been.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Greece - the Stoics

... whose texts are conveniently lost.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

; Roman empire - jus gentium.

... which applied to foreigners, but not to slaves -- and was a body of positive law, not natural law.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
This is a political battle, not a legal one or a logical one. The battle will be one by the side that can muster the public support-- and whether logic helps at all in mustering public support is doubtful.

It all depends on what you mean by "this". If "this" means the question, "do America's equal protection clauses and due process clauses protect a right to gay marriage?", then I disagree. This is a legal question, and in my opinion the answer is "no they don't." If "this" means the broader public debate about gay marriage, I agree. I even agree that gay marriage is good policy. That's why, in the last couple of elections, I supported a party whose leader is semi-openly gay, and that helped enact something like gay marriage in Germany. (Our constitution prohibits full gay marriage.) I agree this is a question of public support. The only problem is gay marriage doesn't have enough public support in America to happen. If it had, its activists wouldn't be turning to the courts.

I have appreciated your comments in this mini debate, but I disagree that most Americans oppose gays receiving the benefits they say they want that are encompassed in the marriage contract; i.e. tax breaks, shared insurance, hospital visitation rights, rights of inheritance, etc. But reasonable people don't see this as a 'gay issue" but an issue for all people who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or can't marry.

I believe most Americans would support, or at least would not object, to a new law allowing such people who do not wish to marry or can't marry for whatever reason to form themselves into legally recognized family groups.

It is not discrimination but an all or nothing demand that is holding up this process in America. The pro traditional American crowd is still in a substantial majority and they will not agree to changing the definition of marriage for a number of very good reasons. The pro-gay-marriage crowd so far has not been willing to compromise. They get their judges to rule in their favor and order their PACS to lobby for laws that would make no distinction betwen a heterosexual or same sex marriage. This sufficiently frightens those who are firmly on the side of traditional marriage and thus you see a wave of laws being passed that shut the gay unions out altogether. This is unfortunate.

If gay people would be willing to compromise and just pick a different word and legislation that would provide the benefits and protections that they need, a whole lot of people, both straight and gay, could benefit. And there would be no discrimination in the law--it would simply be a choice for everybody to have the right to pick one or the other system and enjoy equal access within whatever system they pick.

I know we have legislators who would look at it this way. I wish we had legislators who were presenting it this way. I do believe it would fly.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do we wish to include scientific evidence such as DNA? Becuase, there is a large amount of evidence that humans are all 99.98% identical at the fundamental level, despite phenotype expression. Which is a stronger argument than mere presumption, but I wasn't sure if we wanted to go into it.

What percentage of overlap would you have considered too small to merit equal rights? 99? 95? 90? 50? And by what non-tautological standard do you decide this?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
; Roman empire - jus gentium.

... which applied to foreigners, but not to slaves -- and was a body of positive law, not natural law.

Hmm, they had for their own citizens the Roman rights ...

(Hoping, someone notices that this is totally off topic! Laughing

)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have appreciated your comments in this mini debate,

That's a relief. Please do protest whenever you feel we're derailing your thread too much.

Foxfyre wrote:

but I disagree that most Americans oppose gays receiving the benefits they say they want that are encompassed in the marriage contract; i.e. tax breaks, shared insurance, hospital visitation rights, rights of inheritance, etc. But reasonable people don't see this as a 'gay issue" but an issue for all people who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or can't marry.

That's an interesting point. I was going by the outcomes of state referenda against gay marriage. Many of them prohibited civil unions along with full marriage -- and of those, most were still enacted with majorities between 60 and 70 percent. But we'll see, maybe you'll turn out to be correct.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Do we wish to include scientific evidence such as DNA? Becuase, there is a large amount of evidence that humans are all 99.98% identical at the fundamental level, despite phenotype expression. Which is a stronger argument than mere presumption, but I wasn't sure if we wanted to go into it.

What percentage of overlap would you have considered too small to merit equal rights? 99? 95? 90? 50? And by what non-tautological standard do you decide this?

Is the argument that you are making:

Since there isn't 100% identical DNA, it is impossible to determine a non-tautological standard for determining when difference begins and when it ends?

It seems as if this is a distinction that must be made by the observor. Isn't this 'appealing to extremes?' You state that since no objective point can be reached in which one could determine similarity (since that point cannot be reached except through opinion), one can never say whether humans are fundamentally the same or not?

What about scientific definitions - say, the scientific defintiion of what Homo Homo Sapiens are? Or is this just another judgemental decision devoid of logic? I'll have to research this more.

Cycloptichorn

ps. Fox's last post made a whole lot of sense to me. I haven't, however, seen an example of any time where Gay Rights activists were offered Unions which were functionally similar to Marriage in all but name, so it is difficult to say that this would not be accepted by them, or would be accepted by those who oppose gay marriage.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't care what the 'intention' of your post was; you are making an argument which you cannot support with logic whatsoever, and cannot reconcile it with our system of laws and governance. So, my comments were directly to the point: conservatives are wrong for wishing to deny Gays the right to marry, and they wish to deny them this out of fear, homophobia, and not any good logic. 'Tradition' isn't a reason to deny people rights. It is an excuse used to hide your fear of fags marrying.

So, you weren't right at all. If you were, you would be able to show specific ways that gay marriage would harm society, but you cannot, so...

Cycloptichorn

I supported it with logic in the post I referenced. You don't appear to want to address what I actually said, but that's hardly my fault.

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know