Then you would have loved living in the Massachusettes Bay ColonyOriginally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
If you're a Christian or a Hindu or an Atheist or a Satanist in America then you must abide by the constitution, which states, unequivocally, that all citizens are created equal, and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of Mill's meanderings on the subject, you're violating my fundamental right to life.Originally posted by: amcdonald
I think you are missing the point... the harm principle is just a philosophic statement from John Stuart Mill. It means nothing. If I'm a true hedonist/satanist and I want to kill you, hey guess what, its morally justified in my own mind. The harm principle doesn't apply to anyone but those who accept it as truth.No. There is a common ground, known as the harm principle (Mill). In a nutshell:
...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Given that all humans beings are created equal in this country, that's the only "moral" ground we can stand on, since peoples' religious beliefs vary so widely.
You don't see your bigotry and discriminatory opinion!! Geez, dude...open your eyes! You are restricting what others should be free to do in their own personal lives! Who died and made you your God?Originally posted by: Netopia
But you can to others? Why is it ok for you to jam your viewpoints but others should be restricted? You don't see your own hypocricy do you?Just don't try to shove your viewpoints down my throat.
Well, I guess that just makes the Crusades, the strife in Northern Ireland, the terrorist actions of Muslim fundamentalists, the Inquisition, etc. all ok, eh?A certain atheist by the name of Stalin was responsible for over 20 million all by himself! Now... take that atheitstic regime's total death count as it expanded and defended its territory, add China's and North Viet Nam's and North Korea's..... I doubt religion holds a candle to the number of people put to death by atheist regimes. HOWEVER, just because those regimes are atheist, that doesn't mean that those actions were true to atheism anymore than people who have done bad things in the name of religion were true to the tenents of the religion they claimed. But again, if you want sheer numbers, atheist regimes have killed way more than religious ones.How about the fact that religious fundamentalists are responsible for countless millions of deaths throughout history, all in the name of 'God'.
Geez...have you NOT read this thread??? Several people have tried to use that as an argument. Besides, you're getting quite vague here and not addressing my point. Murder/rape/robbery affect people/property in a HARMFUL way! They are illegal in order to maintain order. Without them, chaos would rule. How would homosexual marriages causes chaos and disrupt society? Hmm...tell me.Who ever said they were comparisons? Where did you pull that from? They were examples of legislated morality... that is all! For those that say you can and shouldn't legislate morality, all I was trying to do was to point out that MOST legislation is based on morality or some sort!Well, sorry, those are not valid comparisons.
WTF??? No! I'm talking my right, should I so desire, to marry someone of the same sex! That is PRIVATE!No, I can. But you're talking about public life, not personal.You cannot tell me how I can behave in my personal life and neither can the government.
A valid point and one only because of the ease with which drugs disable someone. It takes a fair amount of drinking, and time, to get inebriated to the point that one is a danger to others.So you're saying that alcohol should be illegal based on your stated premise. So you're for prohibition or not? And if you aren't, then why are you seperating alcohol from other drugs? Why would you take away a person's right to sit and trip on acid in their own home if they aren't hurting anyone?Well, sorry, but drugs alter the mind and provide a person with the potential for doing great harm to others (while driving, for example).
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
Originally posted by: luv2chill
As I mentioned before, the constitution and "natural law" are both human concepts with no morally justifiable background. They are derived from social beliefs and hold no weight. If I am hedonistic, then why should I look to John Stuart Mill for my moral principles?Politics is politics, no matter how you slice or dice it... terrible, horribly corrupt environment full of the "elite". I'm not talking about politics here... I'm talking about thinking about what the constitution and natural law dictate about what rights humans SHOULD have in this country. Getting them on (or off) the lawbooks is another matter entirely.Do you have any idea what PETA's agenda is? It is entirely based on their belief that animals have inherent rights. Look here and look at the cute green CAMPAIGNS picture in the middle of the screen. "ANIMALS ARE NOT OUR TO EAT, WEAR, EXPERIMENT ON, OR USE FOR ENTERTAINMENT." Now could you please tell me how that is ANY different from saying that animals don't have those rights? Can you tell me how its different from saying that slavery is a good idea? its all subjective morality. Why is this concept so hard to grasp.Also, I don't see PETA or the Sierra Club walking around trying to place legal restrictions on non-harm-causing activities humans do in their own houses. In addition, I'm at least interested in their opinions because they are based on scientific studies and not a book taken on faith to be wholly true without a shred of convincing evidence. Whether you think so or not, science is a COMMON GROUND for everyone--religion isn't. Science is observation of the world around us... the same world we all live in. Religion varies depending what tome you read and how you interpret it. It can't be meaningfully applied to all human beings and therefore has no basis in lawmaking (or even the philosophy behind lawmaking).
l2c
Oh yea, and speaking of slavery... Our country was fortunate enough to witness a change in social morality over this issue. This is a great example of how our own social morality is subjective, even within the confines of our constitution/history.
Originally posted by: luv2chill
One's pursuit of happiness extends to the point where it does harm to someone else's.
l2c
If you're a Christian or a Hindu or an Atheist or a Satanist in America then you must abide by the constitution, which states, unequivocally, that all citizens are created equal, and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Originally posted by: MachFive
Then you don't have a clue what the definition of free will is. Here are some conservative (non-philosophical) definitions. And your poem was cute, but I don't see how it contributes to the discussion in the slightest.A-f*cking-men.
I always said that, "True free will exists insomuch as we can do whatever we please, provided doing so doesn't infringe on someone else's will."
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
What's wrong? umm...try reading this thread. Then you'll see.
Yet you decided to add your own frivilous dribble to the thread.Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
What's wrong? umm...try reading this thread. Then you'll see.
Im not reading 7 pages of frivolous babble.
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
What's wrong? umm...try reading this thread. Then you'll see.
Im not reading 7 pages of frivolous babble.
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
What's wrong? umm...try reading this thread. Then you'll see.
Im not reading 7 pages of frivolous babble.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yet you decided to add your own frivilous dribble to the thread.Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: phatj
Originally posted by: conjur
oy vey
administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
What's wrong with moral laws? An issue both Bush and I finally see eye-to-eye on.
What's wrong? umm...try reading this thread. Then you'll see.
Im not reading 7 pages of frivolous babble.
Originally posted by: phatj[
Just what we need...more freakin' morality laws.
Originally posted by: amcdonald
Originally posted by: MachFive
Then you don't have a clue what the definition of free will is. Here are some conservative (non-philosophical) definitions. And your poem was cute, but I don't see how it contributes to the discussion in the slightest.A-f*cking-men.
I always said that, "True free will exists insomuch as we can do whatever we please, provided doing so doesn't infringe on someone else's will."
Yes but this change awarded rights to those who, on the basis of science and their presence in this country, were legally entitled to them all along. What we're talking about now, is limiting rights based purely on biblical evidence. Belief in biblical tenets is not required for citizenship in this country, adherence to the constitution is. You and Netopia will still want to call that morals, but if you live in this country, you are required to ascribe to the tenet that everyone is equal. That's so fundamental as to be a baseline onto which morality is applied. When you belong to a civilization, you enter into a social contract. If you don't want to enter into that contract, then you aren't a member of said civilization.Originally posted by: amcdonald
Oh yea, and speaking of slavery... Our country was fortunate enough to witness a change in social morality over this issue. This is a great example of how our own social morality is subjective, even within the confines of our constitution/history.
I didn't miss your point, I don't think that true will is what you are trying to define. "True free will exists insomuch as we can do whatever we please, provided doing so doesn't infringe on someone else's will." That sentence defines our freedom within the confines of a legal or ethical system. Free will has nothing to do with anyone else but the individual. And on a personal note, anyone who likes this guy deserves no cookies and a slap on the wrist. That guy couldn't even come up with his own nameOriginally posted by: MachFive
If you're bringing up dictionary definitions of free will, then you missed my point entirely.
The song ("God Thinks," by Voltaire) was to point out the ridiculousness of those who would use their religious texts and biases for justification. Either you work of logic, ethics, and law, or you can work off some doctrine that not everyone in the world can agree on.
They were not legally entitled all along. See the following: Article 1, section 2 & section 9. Article 4, section 2. They were not considered citizens and therefore did not fall under the umbrella of equality.Originally posted by: luv2chill
Yes but this change awarded rights to those who, on the basis of science and their presence in this country, were legally entitled to them all along. What we're talking about now, is limiting rights based purely on biblical evidence. Belief in biblical tenets is not required for citizenship in this country, adherence to the constitution is. You and Netopia will still want to call that morals, but if you live in this country, you are required to ascribe to the tenet that everyone is equal. That's so fundamental as to be a baseline onto which morality is applied. When you belong to a civilization, you enter into a social contract. If you don't want to enter into that contract, then you aren't a member of said civilization.Originally posted by: amcdonald
Oh yea, and speaking of slavery... Our country was fortunate enough to witness a change in social morality over this issue. This is a great example of how our own social morality is subjective, even within the confines of our constitution/history.
l2c
HereOriginally posted by: amcdonald
were not legally entitled all along. See the following: Article 1, section 2 & section 9. Article 4, section 2. They were not considered citizens and therefore did not fall under the umbrella of equality.
There is no logic in saying that that if I don't judge the constitution/DOI to be truth then I can not be considered an American. I am an american by birthright and by nothing else. I am free to discredit the constitution in any way, and even to alter it drastically through legal means! And I am not required to ascribe to the tenet that everyone is equal. I AM hoever able to practice any religion, including those which would place certain people above others. It is entirely legal for me to be a muslim and consider non-muslims worthless. And if I don't adhere to the constitution I will be arrested under the premise that I am a citizen, so therefore I MUST be an American... Also, why would I not be considered part of a civilization just because I do not adhere to a social contract.
Contemporary versions of social contract theory attempt to show that our basic rights and liberties are founded on mutually beneficial agreements which are made between members of society.
Cheers! :beer:Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Most of you engaged in this debate have thus far only raised imaginary children.Let me tell you that when the time omes that you're actually in the parenthood trench that you will see that these issues are not as black and hot as you'd like them to be.
The end goal of parenting is to produce a heathy,productive adult who is capable of being self supporting and who if you're lucky is also capble of loving and of being loved.The world is a scary place to be rearing kids in now,as the mother of three let me tell you that compared to gangs,drugs,cults and the 101 other weird threats out there today the question of a child's sexual orientation falls to the bottom of the list in terms of parental concerns.
I am herosexual,it took me a lot of pain to finally ge things right in terms of a loving reationship,all I want for my children is for them to have somebody who loves and respects them as much as my partner respects me.We blather on endessly about the thigs tat are important,money,career,educationl background,we make noises about this one or that one being suitable or not for our little Susie or Johhnie...bottom line is none of it means a hill of beans if our child isn't loved and isn't happy.I'd imagine being tormented by questions concernng sexual orientation and facing the roadblocks society sets up towards gays would be horrid enough,I'd not add to the pain and torment my child was experiencing by being anything but loving and supportive towards them.
My bottom line critera for any prospective lifemate of my child is that they make my baby happy..period,end of subject.
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Show me which civilizatons have labeled it a "bad thing". In all my studies of history, the only religions that have labeled it as a negative thing were the big three monotheistic religions, and if you know anything about history you know that homosexuality was a rampant and socially-accepted practice from the Greeks up to Victorian society at the beginning of this century. It's only been in Protestant America that this has really caught this much flak.
Stark: I am still waiting for you or someone else who supports this action to reply to this.