|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="xingyiman"]
| Omkara wrote: |
The problem is the consequences of the belief system. I'd not be angry with someone who believed in UFOs, since they do not claim moral authority over others.
God is claimed to be the absolute authority. He is the Lord. His law trumps all law.
California. Proposition 8. Voting on civil rights issues is unethical. These belief systems have profound implications.
Hence, I want to argue against faith. It is a cancer to the brain.
Unlike people of faith, I am willing to change my beliefs. Provide me evidence, real evidence, and I will follow the logic.
Faith is too often counter the evidence. It is in this case irrational, dangerous beyond measure. |
| Quote: |
| Oh so now we get to the crux of the matter. |
No, you've missed my point; or, rather, dodged the issue. The example is a consequence of the crux: unfounded belief which leads to irrational prejudice. Then, owing to a collective irrationality, a vote is taken on a civil rights issue.
Civil rights are not properly decided by a vote. It is a matter of the judiciary.
| Quote: |
| You're sore because all your gay and lesb friends can't get married in Calif. |
Injustice enrages me. But the gay and lesbian issue is only but one of many problems the religious community complicates owing to its superstition and self-righteousness.
| Quote: |
Well yes many religious people voted against it but also lots of people voted against it who had little or no religious motivations ie. blacks, who's stateside culture has never been "down" with the homosexuals and that has not much to do with religion. |
The fact of the matter is, religious groups were the primary organizational groups. They in fact got the ball rolling, so to speak.
| Quote: |
Religious or not the fact is that the majority of people still aren't comfortable with the idea of homosexuality. That is a societal issue not one of faith or Christianity since as society has gotten more secular yet still the prejudices against homesexuals remain. |
That people are not comfortable does not justify irrational and superstitious prejudices.
| Quote: |
| So you are basically lashing out a this particular group becasue the majority of poeple Christians and non associated didn't vote the way you thought they should. Take it up next election. |
No, I have no problem with a justified difference of opinion. I do have a problem when the superstitious organize and become a major political force. I do have a problem when they impose their superstitious and unfounded morality on others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
No, you've missed my point; or, rather, dodged the issue. The example is a consequence of the crux: unfounded belief which leads to irrational prejudice. Then, owing to a collective irrationality, a vote is taken on a civil rights issue.
Civil rights are not properly decided by a vote. It is a matter of the judiciary. |
No it's a tradition of basing legal decisions based upon codes of moral behavior (incidentally called laws). The majority didn't vote in your favor....so sad.
| Omkara wrote: |
Injustice enrages me. But the gay and lesbian issue is only but one of many problems the religious community complicates owing to its superstition and self-righteousness.
|
So you're in need of a cause? WHat else is new?
| Omkara wrote: |
The fact of the matter is, religious groups were the primary organizational groups. They in fact got the ball rolling, so to speak.
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| That people are not comfortable does not justify irrational and superstitious prejudices. |
No but it does justify any qualified person casting a ballot. Which they did.
| Omkara wrote: |
No, I have no problem with a justified difference of opinion. I do have a problem when the superstitious organize and become a major political force. I do have a problem when they impose their superstitious and unfounded morality on others. |
No you're just like everyone esle and need someone to hate on. Incidentally I dont hate gays. I just don't agree with most of their premises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
xingyiman wrote:
| Quote: |
| No it's a tradition of basing legal decisions based upon codes of moral behavior (incidentally called laws). The majority didn't vote in your favor....so sad. |
Tradition is a poor appeal as a foundation to law. Demonstrated harm or benefit is a better foundation.
| Quote: |
| So you're in need of a cause? WHat else is new? |
Your argumentation is weak here-- ad hominem.
| Quote: |
| No but it does justify any qualified person casting a ballot. Which they did. |
I know what they did. I am arguing that what they did is unethical. The ballot box is an inappropriate place to decide civil rights since civil rights are meant to protect minority groups. Imagine if we chose to decide the women's voting issue at the ballot box.
Majority opinion in no way implies objectivity.
| Quote: |
No you're just like everyone esle and need someone to hate on. Incidentally I dont hate gays. I just don't agree with most of their preises |
Maybe I am like everyone else, whoever that is. But I don't take up a fight just for the sake of fighting. I'm glad you don't hate gays. I'm not saying you do.
Let's bring it down to one question. This is the crux. What evidence have you that there exists God? Then, if you cannot provide even one weak scrap of indication, what right has anyone who cannot provide evidence to legislate and proscribe laws under which anyone is to live?
You can attack my character, but that won't answer the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What evidence have you that there exists God? Then, if you cannot provide even one weak scrap of indication, what right has anyone who cannot provide evidence to legislate and proscribe laws under which anyone is to |
What evidence are you seeking?
Written accounts of people?
A physical object able to be held?
A test that can be retested under certain conditions?
A mythbusters experiment on televison that recreates or does not recreate an event that occured?
I believe because of what I have experienced, yet most of the experiments could not be recreated in a lab, even if I wished to do so.
You believe of things because of evidence you have and I believe in what I do because of evidence I have. Not much point in trying to convince you of anything, you have already made up your own mind. It seems that most athiests are trying to convince others more than others are trying to convince you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We are trying to convince others because we love liberty and the freedom of the mind.
Subjective accounts are insufficient to justify legislation.
I want evidence that can be demonstrated.
My mind is open to demonstration. God has not chosen to open my eyes. So, I need someone else to show me how it is possible and how it works.
Written accounts are only weak evidence that needs to be corroborated. I have no grounds on which to prefer Krishna, Zeus, or Allah.
I don't know about your evidence, your experience. However, my experience with most people's subjective accounts is that it is some vague and emotional experience, even if powerful.
I do not deny the experiences. I do question their interpretations, though.
Again, I see that the skeptical mind is that mind that will fight to maintain freedom and liberty. The Judeo-Christian traditions, as well as the Islamic traditions, are not favorable to the conditions of freedom of inquiry, thought, and the life of the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
Tradition is a poor appeal as a foundation to law. Demonstrated harm or benefit is a better foundationon. |
Which by the way, gays or Christians have not demonstrated the occurence of either in favor of or in opposition to their views. Which brings us back to square1. You simply favor one group and despise the other based upon you bias. Interestingly, thats what you're accusing your foes of doing.
| Omkara wrote: |
Your argumentation is weak here-- ad hominem.
|
Sorry professor. I just have never understood flag waving of such vehement nature on the part of a group that you have no vested interest in. Unless of course you or someone close to you are indeed gay and want to marry in the State of California. I never understand rage since it's usually universally based on misplaced anger.
| Omkara wrote: |
| I know what they did. I am arguing that what they did is unethical. The ballot box is an inappropriate place to decide civil rights since civil rights are meant to protect minority groups. Imagine if we chose to decide the women's voting issue at the ballot box. |
So lets just do away with the whole democratic process and let the 9th district court of appeals decide all the issues, taxes, presidential elections, etc....
| Omkara wrote: |
| Majority opinion in no way implies objectivity. |
Incientally, neither does the minority opinion, nor the opinions of those influenced by political motivations.
| Omkara wrote: |
Let's bring it down to one question. This is the crux. What evidence have you that there exists God? Then, if you cannot provide even one weak scrap of indication, what right has anyone who cannot provide evidence to legislate and proscribe laws under which anyone is to live? |
This isn't really about God. Laws are based upon universal moral truths which transcend religion. Ours happened to be framed in the Judeo Christian Ten Commandments. Other religions have similar tenets. You can take away the religion, wipe out the concept of Jesus, Muhammed, or whoever else and you are still left with the fundamental issues of right and wrong which societies will grapple with for all time. So basically you have to ask yourselves the question - Are we angry with the messenger of the truths which we hold or the underlying ideas behind them which are non denominational and abstract? Thus you have the foundations of our current culture war. Polls show again and again that people generally are not completely comfortable with the concept of homosexuality. People might justify this through an affiliation with religion but it would no doubt exist in it's absence as have other form of popular culture resistance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that "Omkara" is committing at least one of the same logical fallacies as Richard Dawkins:
1. Self-Contradiction � a statement that refers to and falsifies itself
In an open letter to his daughter Juliet, Richard Dawkins laudably encourages her to think for herself:
Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: �Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?� And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: �What kind of evidence is there for that?� And if they can�t give you a good answer, I hope you�ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly (conflating evidence with empirical evidence) that his encouragement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. In which case, Dawkins� statement tells us not to believe a word he says! Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting. The belief that �knowledge is identical to scientific knowledge� is not something that can be known scientifically. Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called �positivism�).
http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
I think that "Omkara" is committing at least one of the same logical fallacies as Richard Dawkins:
1. Self-Contradiction � a statement that refers to and falsifies itself
In an open letter to his daughter Juliet, Richard Dawkins laudably encourages her to think for herself:
Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: �Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?� And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: �What kind of evidence is there for that?� And if they can�t give you a good answer, I hope you�ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly (conflating evidence with empirical evidence) that his encouragement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. In which case, Dawkins� statement tells us not to believe a word he says! Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting. The belief that �knowledge is identical to scientific knowledge� is not something that can be known scientifically. Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called �positivism�).
http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm |
No, RTeacher. It doesn't quite work that way, though I'm familiar with the criticism you are charging me with.
It's more practical than that. Those kinds of things for which we have had evidence have been statistically far more reliable than those things for which we had none. Therefore, it is better to trust those things for which we have evidence.
I'll come back to the former post this evening, have I the time. (It's funny, though, that the poster keep calling me angry. I'm not sure that I'm so angry here, save that I mentioned that injustice enrages me.)
But, I'll get back to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| We are trying to convince others because we love liberty and the freedom of the mind. |
Being compulsively silenced by govt because someone voices their beliefs running contrary to the gay leftist agenda does not strike me as exactly "liberty and freedom". That's one of the things that gays are trying to get passed.
| Omkara wrote: |
Subjective accounts are insufficient to justify legislation.
I want evidence that can be demonstrated. |
And that is exactly the only thing that gays have to show - subjectiveness. The studies are inconclusive and contradictory.
The evidence is in the vote. People aren't comfortable with it and they voted.
| Omkara wrote: |
| My mind is open to demonstration. God has not chosen to open my eyes. So, I need someone else to show me how it is possible and how it works. |
Well then, why not ask God himself. If he doesn't answer you then you have your answer. No one has to know. Have you ever tried? If we're basing all this on feeling then give it a whirl. All you have to lose is the effort. Others have experiences and feelings which contradict your assumptions.
| Omkara wrote: |
| I don't know about your evidence, your experience. However, my experience with most people's subjective accounts is that it is some vague and emotional experience, even if powerful. |
True religion is genreally a very personal experience. Its not the superbowl bandwagon that many make it out to be.
| Omkara wrote: |
| Again, I see that the skeptical mind is that mind that will fight to maintain freedom and liberty. The Judeo-Christian traditions, as well as the Islamic traditions, are not favorable to the conditions of freedom of inquiry, thought, and the life of the mind. |
Neither are the traditions of any group or hiearchy of any nature because humans have demonstrated throughout the centuries that we are inherently selfish, bigoted, and discrimatory. We live by figuring out how to live together and that means maintaining a concensus and status quo, which by many definitions may not be equivocally right and just but necessary for the stability of the cultures in which we strive. Hence the voting process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="xingyiman"]
| Omkara wrote: |
No, you've missed my point; or, rather, dodged the issue. The example is a consequence of the crux: unfounded belief which leads to irrational prejudice. Then, owing to a collective irrationality, a vote is taken on a civil rights issue.
Civil rights are not properly decided by a vote. It is a matter of the judiciary. |
No it's a tradition of basing legal decisions based upon codes of moral behavior (incidentally called laws). The majority didn't vote in your favor....so sad.
/quote]
So if the majority in Iran, say, vote to restrict the rights of some subgroup, call them Christians, thats ok? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="xingyiman"]
| Quote: |
You simply favor one group and despise the other based upon you bias. Interestingly, thats what you're accusing your foes of doing |
.
No, this is not what I'm doing. I ask of all adults that they present their arguments in a reasoned, substantiated fashion. "Because my God says so" is not reasoned. If there were a God, what It had to say would, I think be amenable to reason. (I refer to God as "It" because I see no evidence that It has a *beep*.)
| Quote: |
I just have never understood flag waving of such vehement nature on the part of a group that you have no vested interest in. Unless of course you or someone close to you are indeed gay and want to marry in the State of California. I never understand rage since it's usually universally based on misplaced anger. |
To quote MLK Jr, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (That he believed in God does not therefore negate the wisdom of this statement.)
| Quote: |
| So lets just do away with the whole democratic process and let the 9th district court of appeals decide all the issues, taxes, presidential elections, etc.... |
Another poster brought up the Iran point. Think it through.
| Quote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| Majority opinion in no way implies objectivity. |
Incientally, neither does the minority opinion, nor the opinions of those influenced by political motivations. |
I could not agree with you more.
| Quote: |
| This isn't really about God. |
No, it's not. It's about the psychology which produces the illusion. (I'm still waiting for an argument for Its existence, with some kind of evidence.)
| Quote: |
| Laws are based upon universal moral truths which transcend religion. |
Such as?
| Quote: |
Ours happened to be framed in the Judeo Christian Ten Commandments. |
Historically, the Ten Commandments are important, I agree. But out laws are not based thereon.
| Quote: |
| Other religions have similar tenets. You can take away the religion, wipe out the concept of Jesus, Muhammed, or whoever else and you are still left with the fundamental issues of right and wrong which societies will grapple with for all time. |
Yes, I agree.
| Quote: |
| So basically you have to ask yourselves the question - Are we angry with the messenger of the truths which we hold or the underlying ideas behind them which are non denominational and abstract? |
I'm not sure that the anger is mine, here.
Nevertheless, that religion hold some true beliefs does not imply that the beliefs are true because of the religion.
| Quote: |
Thus you have the foundations of our current culture war. |
The culture war is owing to one faction--the religious right--not understanding the difference between Belief and Justified, True Belief.
If one has a correct belief, yet that belief is not justified, it cannot be counted as knowledge.
| Quote: |
Polls show again and again that people generally are not completely comfortable with the concept of homosexuality |
.
There is also a difference between Justified, True Belief and Justified, Popular Belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| My mind is open to demonstration. God has not chosen to open my eyes. So, I need someone else to show me how it is possible and how it works. |
I believed in God for my childhood and into puberty. I even investigated with sincerity into my twenties. But as the concepts being put forth grew more clear to me, I began to see how untenable the ideas in fact were. That they were untenable and utterly without evidence, and since God did not answer me, the only sane position for me to take was that of the atheist.
Granted, it was not an easy transition. There was anxiety. But, I learned that the anxiety itself was born of the false ideas themselves. I am very happy to be godless. Now, I can look for truth under a different rock.
| Quote: |
| Well then, why not ask God himself. If he doesn't answer you then you have your answer. |
Indeed.
Again, I don't doubt that there are important and life changing experiences. I've has one or two. But, I do doubt the clothing we put on them, for the very reason I stated before: they are at the heart absurd. Not the experience, the explanation is absurd.
| Quote: |
Others have experiences and feelings which contradict your assumptions. |
| Quote: |
True religion is genreally a very personal experience. |
Yes, and so is true love. Why are the Christians so often getting involved with other's personal choice? What if I chose not to recognize Christian Marriage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Omkara
No, this is not what I'm doing. I ask of all adults that they present their arguments in a reasoned, substantited fashion. "Because my God says so" is not reasoned. If there were a God, what It had to say would, I think be amenable to reason. (I refer to God as "It" because I see no evidence that It has a *beep*.)[/quote]
Lets just leave the argument about God alone for a moment because anyone who has had a Philosophy 101 class knows that it's a dead end argument. My position is that aside from religion, people generally have an aversion to homosexuality. You claim that society's attitude is influenced by those religious beliefs. That may in part be true for the religious crowd to some extent but what about the non religious people who demonstrate an aversion to homosexuality?
What we are talking about here are not laws but moreson mores and norms. When I was a child there was an incrdible stigma attatched to unwed mothers. Moreso than you would find nowadays. In these days it's no big deal to find a teen pregnant without a father in sight. But is our society a better place because of this social shift? Are the women who find themselves in such situations any better off on any level becasue they are more socially integrated? How does this integration affect the way they view the choices they made and the ways they evaluate their lives?
You could make the assumption that the the mores and norms in our society are being eroded. Our culture is in decline and so are the mores and norms which hold it together.
I am in no way shape or form in favor of open discrimination or mistreatment of anyone based upon any held religious beliefs of otherwise.
As to the comment about Iran made by another poster, there's a difference between the balatent persecution that Christians AND homosexuals experiece at the hands of that regime and the simple denial of a marriage certificate. That's an infantile comparison that anyone of our intelligence levels should be able to differentiate.
| Quote: |
I just have never understood flag waving of such vehement nature on the part of a group that you have no vested interest in. Unless of course you or someone close to you are indeed gay and want to marry in the State of California. I never understand rage since it's usually universally based on misplaced anger. |
To quote MLK Jr, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (That he believed in God does not therefore negate the wisdom of this statement.)
| Quote: |
| So lets just do away with the whole democratic process and let the 9th district court of appeals decide all the issues, taxes, presidential elections, etc.... |
Another poster brought up the Iran point. Think it through.
| Quote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| Majority opinion in no way implies objectivity. |
Incientally, neither does the minority opinion, nor the opinions of those influenced by political motivations. |
I could not agree with you more.
| Quote: |
| This isn't really about God. |
No, it's not. It's about the psychology which produces the illusion. (I'm still waiting for an argument for Its existence, with some kind of evidence.)
| Quote: |
| Laws are based upon universal moral truths which transcend religion. |
Such as?
| Quote: |
Ours happened to be framed in the Judeo Christian Ten Commandments. |
Historically, the Ten Commandments are important, I agree. But out laws are not based thereon.
| Quote: |
| Other religions have similar tenets. You can take away the religion, wipe out the concept of Jesus, Muhammed, or whoever else and you are still left with the fundamental issues of right and wrong which societies will grapple with for all time. |
Yes, I agree.
| Quote: |
| So basically you have to ask yourselves the question - Are we angry with the messenger of the truths which we hold or the underlying ideas behind them which are non denominational and abstract? |
I'm not sure that the anger is mine, here.
Nevertheless, that religion hold some true beliefs does not imply that the beliefs are true because of the religion.
| Quote: |
Thus you have the foundations of our current culture war. |
The culture war is owing to one faction--the religious right--not understanding the difference between Belief and Justified, True Belief.
If one has a correct belief, yet that belief is not justified, it cannot be counted as knowledge.
| Quote: |
Polls show again and again that people generally are not completely comfortable with the concept of homosexuality |
.
There is also a difference between Justified, True Belief and Justified, Popular Belief.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
xingyman wrote:
| Quote: |
| Lets just leave the argument about God alone for a moment because anyone who has had a Philosophy 101 class knows that it's a dead end argument. |
It's only a dead end argument when we play the faith card. It is a dead end argument for emotional reasons, because of some psychological dependency.
| Quote: |
My position is that aside from religion, people generally have an aversion to homosexuality. You claim that society's attitude is influenced by those religious beliefs. That may in part be true for the religious crowd to some extent but what about the non religious people who demonstrate an aversion to homosexuality? |
My argument, more specifically, is that the religious have been very effective at organizing, and hence at influencing the political process. In itself, the organization is not a problem. Rather, it is the irrational agenda that they successfully forward.
I have yet to see a valid argument as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Did I hear such an argument, I'd carefully listen. But I have only heard opinion, prejudice and superstition. Being "uncomfortable" with the institution is insufficient to justify a political campaign.
I'm "uncomfortable" with Christians practicing symbolic cannibalism, drinking blood and eating flesh.
| Quote: |
What we are talking about here are not laws but moreson mores and norms. When I was a child there was an incrdible stigma attatched to unwed mothers. Moreso than you would find nowadays. |
Mores and norms do change over time. Female genital mutilation is a norm in many Islamic countries. Moreover, voting on the issue is not likely to solve the problem.
| Quote: |
| You could make the assumption that the the mores and norms in our society are being eroded. |
True. Then, we must examine if those mores and norms were harmful or helpful to the society.
| Quote: |
| Our culture is in decline and so are the mores and norms which hold it together. |
What makes you so sure?
| Quote: |
| I am in no way shape or form in favor of open discrimination or mistreatment of anyone based upon any held religious beliefs of otherwise. |
Nor am I. I am in favor of weakening groups which organize around bad and harmful ideas. I am in favor of making the superstitious and irrational elements of religion embarrassing. I am in favor of keeping idiocy out of power.
| Quote: |
As to the comment about Iran made by another poster, there's a difference between the balatent persecution that Christians AND homosexuals experiece at the hands of that regime and the simple denial of a marriage certificate. That's an infantile comparison that anyone of our intelligence levels should be able to differentiate. |
No, not so infantile. Separate form from content, and you will see they share form.
Secondly, why do you think it is not outrageous that Christians and other religious groups have denied couples the right to marry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| My argument, more specifically, is that the religious have been very effective at organizing, and hence at influencing the political process. |
So have gays. The difference - you like those guys.
| Quote: |
| I have yet to see a valid argument as to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Did I hear such an argument, I'd carefully listen. But I have only heard opinion, prejudice and superstition. Being "uncomfortable" with the institution is insufficient to justify a political campaign. |
And I have yet to see a valid argument as to why they should be. What will it gain them apart from what a civil union would already bestow upon them? What they want is blanket acceptence of their lifestyles and the majority of people (religious and not) have shown that they are not willing to concede.
| Quote: |
I'm "uncomfortable" with Christians practicing symbolic cannibalism, drinking blood and eating flesh.
|
As the little pop tarts in the 90's used to say. "If ya don't like it....don't look!" When was the last time anyone forcefully coerced you to go to a communion service? Moreover, who has threatened you with prosecution for "hate speech" because you voiced your disdain for it? Churches don't hold communion services in public nor do they ask the government for official recognition of their rites.
| Quote: |
| Mores and norms do change over time. Female genital mutilation is a norm in many Islamic countries. Moreover, voting on the issue is not likely to solve the problem. |
Mores and norms do change over time but they change as peoples attitudes change not through judicial mandate as you would sugest. Some mores remain as well.
| Quote: |
True. Then, we must examine if those mores and norms were harmful or helpful to the society. |
Well, I'm all ears as to your thesis and opinion. As of yet I only have a littany of complaints.
| Quote: |
What makes you so sure?
|
Rome is burning Omkara. Look out your window.
| Quote: |
Nor am I. I am in favor of weakening groups which organize around bad and harmful ideas. I am in favor of making the superstitious and irrational elements of religion embarrassing. I am in favor of keeping idiocy out of power.
|
So how would gay marriage be beneficial to society? I am waiting for the answer to that one. Are you in favor of extending your crusade to those individuals who consult astrological charts or make decisions while practicing Wicca? Or do you still just have a thing for Christians?
| Quote: |
| No, not so infantile. Separate form from content, and you will see they share form. |
And Capitalism shares some form with communism. Your point?
| Quote: |
| Secondly, why do you think it is not outrageous that Christians and other religious groups have denied couples the right to marry? |
I do not think it is outrageous. Traditionally gays have not had the benefit of legal marriage. And I must ask what would it gain them? People will still harbor the same resentments and aversions. They'll hate married gays just like they hate them now. Except that most people I believe do not genuinely hate homosexuals and having an aversion to a lifestyle that you find objectionale for whatever reasons does not constitute hatred.
We don't let brothers and sisters marry either. Why? Because it is a violation of the norms that exist which in part are conducive to a civil society. You'd like to toss the norms out the window and hope that the world will be one big jolly place. We wear clothes because why? Well one, for protection and warmth but also because most modern societies have deemed that humans should wear them. Thats why we hae nudist collonies for people to go there and practice their lifestyles rather than asking society as a whole to go in the buff or excuse the violations of modesty so as to accomodate a needy minority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
