quote:Bokonon, you and many others have made the point that people shouldn't let their faith dictate the way that they vote.
I didn't see any of these posts so I'm not sure of the context. However, I would also disagree, but maybe for a different reason.
I think that no one can escape the fact that their religion or even lack thereof must affect the way that they govern their lives and thus the way that they would like their society to treat them in their lives. Therefore they will vote based on their beliefs and those beliefs will be molded by their religion.
However, the United States is built on a constitution that requires the minority, after such a vote, be afforded basic rights. That is, regardless of what the majority decides, certain freedoms may not be infringed upon.
So, by all means vote your conscience. That is not only your right, but it is required for our democracy to function. However, you must be aware that there are certain rights that you cannot deny other citizens, no matter how strongly you hold the view that because of their station they don't deserve those rights.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, I don't think the food storage analogy is an improvement, as we're still talking about a behavior that is banned as opposed to a behavior which is simply not recognized. In fact, the American approach to food storage -- that it's not banned, but that the government doesn't force you to do it -- is probably closer to the "civil union" proposal in tone.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awful as in awful to consider or awful as in poorly thought-out?
But the Jews also believe very strongly that Gentiles aren't supposed to follow Jewish law. That is not the way others look at things.
For instance, as a Latter-day Saint, I look at the universe being comprised of natural eternal laws with set consequences. Those consequences may not be turned aside--they must come to pass. Not even God would stand in the way of that. But he is merciful to people according to how much they understand what they are doing. Still, I believe that all offenses are covered by Christ's atonement and that without that there can be no balance for offense to eternal law.
It is a different way of looking at things than the Jewish model you gave, and the hypothetical I gave is more pertinent to it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Though where would it ever be illegal to keep a year's supply of food on hand?
I don't know which countries. I only know that when the church speaks or sends out articles on the subject, it makes reference to countries in which it is illegal and what to do in those circumstances.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say NOT to vote your faith, but temper it with the realization that the government, at most, concerns itself only with tangible earthly things.
As for your hypothetical, I think everyone would be within their right to protest it, short of legislating (voting) it. I do think that if they can't provide reason why it should be within the earthly government's jurisdiction to regulate these relationships (in such a way as to show tangible, earthly harm across the whole of the citizenry), then they shouldn't try to legislate those beliefs. Convince people, set up large-scale protests to change people's minds (or more to the point, be convinced of the rightness of your own beliefs), that is all fine and good. That way, you could still end up with a de facto society of none (or few) of these types of relationships, even if the law is on the books (much like many current laws that are no longer enforced).
But to utilize an earthly, temporal, man-made system to legislate supernatural, faith-based legislation, seems a misapplication of tools.
Now, if you CAN prove harm in these relationships, in this life (which is the only one this government can and ought to have any regulation over) I think that voting in that way is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
posted
Sorry bev, awful in that it didn't make your point at all, and you deliberately used a emotionally loaded subject in your argument that was totally irrelevant in the context you gave it. It was as if you were thinking that the emotional loading would help, when it is totally irrelevant in any example. If there was no documented harm of adult-child sex being bad for society, you could vote against it all you wanted, but it wouldn't matter, nor should it.
The priveledge has already been granted. There IS NO DOCUMENTED HARM, therefore it would be far far harder to take away than the other way around.
Now in reality you think there IS documented harm to adult-child sex, and I would agree. But I don't agree that there is documented harm in calling marriage a "civil union" for the purpose of the Legal Definition only.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though where would it ever be illegal to keep a year's supply of food on hand? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know which countries. I only know that when the church speaks or sends out articles on the subject, it makes reference to countries in which it is illegal and what to do in those circumstances.
In times of shortage in many countries (including this one, if I'm not mistaken) there are statutes against hoarding. I'm sure which items for which hoarding is illegal, and what actually constitutes hoarding varies somewhat from time to time and place to place.
posted
ok that makes sense about anti-hoarding laws... But it would seem that if you could get your supplies before the shortages happened then it wouldn't necessarily be hoarding?
posted
Bok, it is my belief that there are earthly, tangible consequences that do not show up in scientific studies. My belief, therefore, is based on my faith rather than scientific evidence. But it seems to me that society is a far too complex critter to be defined and understood scientifically. Only the most overt of trends can be noticed and measured. That is my opinion.
Let me just play devil's advocate for a bit. Whatever those people are called who believe adult-child sex should be fine (I can't remember ATM) their argument seems to be that the only harm in it is the same sort of harm that happens in any abusive relationship--and abuse is wrong, but not the sex itself. They believe that if there were no associated taboo or guilt, there would be no negative effects--that we are denying children a beautiful and rewarding experience. You know, for all we know, they may be "right". Perhaps in such a society no harm would be found in any scientific study.
Similar to the studies that in Europe where there isn't such a taboo on extra-marital sex there is less teen pregnancy and STDs and whatnot. For all appearances, it seems that if we didn't have the Puritan taboos and the guilt and we all just made sure to have safe, mature sex whether marital or extra-marital, our society would be better off. It is our taboos and guilt that are the problem, right?
But you know what? I believe there would be harm in both cases. Damn the scientific studies--that is what I believe. (I believe) there are some things that are earthly, real, and tangible that just don't show up there.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, gay marriage *is* an emotionally loaded subject for plenty of people. Though it really isn't for me. I am fairly ambivalent on the subject. If gay marriage became legal, I don't think it would bother me personally all that much. Though legalizing adult-child sex would--as I think gay marriage bothers many.
But I believe what I said in the above post. I believe that a lot of the obvious "harm" that comes from adult-child sex comes from abuse, taboo, and guilt. Remove those things, and I don't think the harm would show up in scientific studies. But, as I made abundantly clear, I do *not* believe that equals an actual lack of harm.
posted
Fair enough, but in this case, it doesn't matter what we say, dialogue has essentially ended with you, correct? I don't mean to say that you should stop exhorting people to believe that there are tangible consequences, but rather, we can no longer call it a discussion, or conversation. You are not able to provide evidence of harm in a manner that is acceptable to me, and I can't convince you that there isn't harm being done, because you know there is.
So I guess all I can say is, good luck, and we'll see what happens
quote:But you know what? I believe there would be harm in both cases. Damn the scientific studies--that is what I believe. (I believe) there are some things that are earthly, real, and tangible that just don't show up there.
I think a lot of people feel this way but are not honest enough to admit that they are basing their opinions purely on personal faith. At least you have the courage to admit it. I respect your courage (if not your view).
I'm curious though. Would you apply the "science be damned" rule to other things like national defense, environmental protection, FDA policy, etc?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*trying to figure out where the lack of a child being able to give "informed consent" comes in to your scenario, bev.
That is I think what really separates someone who is emotionally capable of having sex from someone who isn't. I think there are a lot of people over 18 that can't handle that emotional maturity, but are legally allowed to do it anyway, (and a lot of people under 18 that are capable of handling it, but the line had to be drawn arbitrarily somewhere)
Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
posted
Let me just give an example: (Not for the squicky at heart)
In the Philippines, it is very common for small children to go without clothes. It is also very common for adults to "play" with little boy's penis' just as the might play with a child's nose, ear, bellybutton, etc. This (as far as I can tell) is not considered sexual behavior *at all*.
Well, *I* think it is sexual behavior--at least after a fashion. I wouldn't do it to my children or anyone else's nor would I permit such behavior towards my children! I would consider it molestation. I was raised in a society where you do not touch the private parts of children in that way.
So, is it really wrong? Do these Philippino boys grow up warped? I really don't know. Not as far as *I* could tell. It is just a normal part of their society (as is 7 year old children and older sucking on their mother's teats for comfort.)
posted
As Porter suggested, perhaps "tangible" is not the best word to describe it.
Bok, I didn't mean to end the discussion. I just want to help others understand how I look at things. I am also interested in understanding how others see things. It makes it less likely that you will convince me, but IMO these discussions are far more for understanding than for convincing. I don't have any hope of convincing you either. I just want you to *understand*. I already felt this way before we started talking about it, I have simply expressed the way I look at it.
Vwiggin, I do not think "science be damned" about everything. Just because I think science cannot tell us everything about something as complex as society does not mean that science is not a very useful tool in harder sciences.
Also, any evidence found by science is valid evidence. And it does influence my religious views, despite what others may think. For instance, the scientific evidence in favor of evolution effects my perception of the Creation story.
Banna, you and I believe a child cannot give "informed consent". Others may not see a problem with that. After all, do I need informed consent to send my daughter to her room for making a mess? It all depends on the POV of individuals and society. I think my above example gives an interesting perspective on this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
I quite agree. Apples and oranges. It tires me to no end that the one is brought up as an analogy of the other or as some inane slippery-slope kind of arguement.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
But Karl, aren't you a homosexual because you were sexually abused as a child? OSC said so, so it must be true.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: dialogue has essentially ended with you, correct? I don't mean to say that you should stop exhorting people to believe that there are tangible consequences, but rather, we can no longer call it a discussion, or conversation. You are not able to provide evidence of harm in a manner that is acceptable to me, and I can't convince you that there isn't harm being done, because you know there is.
So I guess all I can say is, good luck, and we'll see what happens [Smile]
Yes and no. If you notice, I have not exhorted anybody to believe anything. You and I start with very different assumptions about what is and what should be, and it is unlikely in the extreme that we could come to a concensus on this topic.
But we can still have a meaningful dialog on this topic.
In my recent posts on this thread, I have not been trying to discuss the topic of gay marriage directly, but I have been trying to discuss people's feelings toward it.
The only time that dialog has stopped is when you decide that your opponents are all sub-human (or ignorant, or bigoted, or stupid, etc.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
I don't think that's fair. Goodwin's Law works because people generally don't bring up Hitler/Nazis until they already have stopped listening to others. That is not the case with beverly.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* I was not trying to draw any paralells between homosexuality and child-adult sex. Now *I* wish I hadn't used that example because people automatically jump to the conclusion that that is what I was doing instead of actually listening to what I was saying.
I was responding to someone saying that I shouldn't try to legislate based on faith and come up with an example where a person might do so--a case where the majority of people believe there is nothing morally wrong with something you think is morally wrong. I could have used examples involving violence also, assuming there is a group of people out there who argue that violence is justifiable and has arguments for it that I can't refute.
There *is* already a group of people that argue that child-adult sex is acceptable, and some of their arguments make sense (even if I disagree with them.) Were they to truly test their theories, they might even have science on their side. That would not convince me that they are right. I couldn't think of another example that fit those requirements.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, that is why I haven't responded to your comment about the Phillipines although I would like to, I think it contributes further to further derailment of the discussion away from your original point.
quote:Let me just play devil's advocate for a bit. Whatever those people are called who believe adult-child sex should be fine (I can't remember ATM) their argument seems to be that the only harm in it is the same sort of harm that happens in any abusive relationship--and abuse is wrong, but not the sex itself. They believe that if there were no associated taboo or guilt, there would be no negative effects--that we are denying children a beautiful and rewarding experience. You know, for all we know, they may be "right". Perhaps in such a society no harm would be found in any scientific study.
I don't think this qualifies for Goodwin's Law, but the last sentence is close to violating Squicky's law.
There are plenty of reasons why having sex with minors is wrong beyond the "taboo" argument. Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
My point is, this is a moral belief. It just so happens that the majority of people agree with you. I can imagine a society in which this was not a commonly held belief. *shudder* It is not a society I would wish to live in, though.
Have there been societies that have been casual about their attitudes towards murder? It seems to be the case. I wouldn't enjoy living in those societies either. It is tough when the morality of an entire society goes against your own.
Even if the majority of society disagrees with my personal code of morality, I must still vote my conscience. If the courts declare that it is a basic human right, then I don't get to vote.
I just get bugged when people tell me not to inflict my religious beliefs on them. I am trying to be fair about this. I am not trying to "punish" homosexuals. I have no interest in punishing homosexual unions. But I do believe in "rewarding" heterosexual unions--because of my personal moral code and the influence I believe it will have on society--measurable or not.
posted
Okay, perhaps I ought to amend my statement. I don't mean that either of should stop talking about it, but I think, at least between me and you, we do understand why the other believes in the way they do, at least up to the point prior to where I I or you would agree with the other. I understand that religious beliefs which you hold dear inform much of your opinion on this issue. I am not one to attempt any usurpation of those beliefs, so any further discussion doesn't do anything.
I guess that's the beauty of it
Honestly though, if we both understand that we aren't to be swayed, and we both ALSO understand that our reasons for conflicting beliefs aren't to be reconciled within the scope of this discussion, I don't know how much further you and I can have dialogue. We can talk to others, but really, what can more dialogue between the two of us, at this juncture, add to the discussion, unless it is actually trying to attempt to change my mind.
I hope you realize that I didn't mean to be negatively judgmental when I said dialogue is closed; merely I was pointing out what seemed to be a simple fact, and that any more dialogue between us would be chasing our own tails (and actually trying to change one's beliefs, even if not intentional).
posted
It's OK, Bokonon. This thread was a question posed to people of my approximate mindset. (My husband and I disagree slightly on this issue.) You and I can agree to disagree, and I am fine with that. It just gets my hackles up when people seem to think that my POV is less valid than theirs because it is associated with religious tenets.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Vwiggin: Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
Beverly: My point is, this is a moral belief. It just so happens that the majority of people agree with you. I can imagine a society in which this was not a commonly held belief. *shudder* It is not a society I would wish to live in, though.
But these are not just moral beliefs. A lot of the things I listed can be measured or proven by sociological studies.
Studies can show that people over the age of 18 make better parents than people under the age of 18. Studies can show that when surveyed, children have very little understanding of what "consent" actually means as compared to adults. Studies can show that children are less likely to demand the use of contraceptives because they have less power in their sexual relationships.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok -- yeah, I agree with what you said. We understand each other now. But it is only because of useful dialog that we have been able to reach that point.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I can prove that a society that is lax about murder has problems too. That doesn't change the fact that it is a moral issue and different societies at different times have had different takes on it.
I do see your point that there is concrete evidence for arguments against child-adult sex and there is not similar evidence against gay marriage's effect on our country. I agree with you. They are different issues. I do think that there are aspects to the child-adult sex issue that go around protestations dealing with STDs and pregnancy--activities that cause neither but would still be illegal in our society. Again, the consent thing is a matter of perspective and morality--more difficult to back up with science.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have there been societies that have been casual about their attitudes towards murder? It seems to be the case.
quote:It just gets my hackles up when people seem to think that my POV is less valid than theirs because it is associated with religious tenets.
I think it's fairly well-understood that all societies have rules and regulations against certain actions (e.g., murder, rape, and theft) within the society; otherwise, the cohesiveness of the society could not be maintained. Where there is demonstrable harm to individuals within the society, such actions need to be highly constrained if not outright disallowed. (For example, one could say that capital punishment is a highly constrained form of murder.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "valid," though, and I might or might not agree that a given point of view is just as "valid" as any other. Certainly we distinguish between more or less reasonable and justifiable points of view -- even if we believe everyone has a "right" to his or her point of view, we may not think it is interpersonally justifiable.
I have a definite level of discomfort about legislating restrictions on other adults' actions when the reasons why cannot be demonstrated to them. This is even moreso when such harms are claimed to be undemonstrable as a matter of their kind, even moreso than just being harms which merely haven't been demonstrated yet. In such a case, I would say that a given point of view wasn't as "valid" (reasonable, justifiable, worthy of interpersonal legislative force) as one in which such harms could be demonstrated.
I would, however, defend the right of a person with that point of view to hold that position and to argue for it. I would just disagree with that person as well.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The phrase the caught my attention above, however, was "This legal structure exists because it is helps people form such unions". This implies somewhat (but I don't believe it was your intention) that the law was written when the institution of marriage may have been seen as weak or eroding, with the specific intent to strengthen that institution.
rubble, you’re right, I didn’t mean to assert that at the time these institutions came into being, there was a conscious thought process that “this will encourage people to get married.” Certainly marriage existed long before the Anglo-American common law institutions attached to marriage did.
Rather, I think that as common law principles coalesced, they made exceptions or special rules that took marriages into account, and that at least part of the reason they did this was to make sure marriage was protected from some of the implications of the new laws.
Now, of course, it’s possible to look at specific statutory enactments and say “this exists to help out married couples.” The tax code, statutory codification of common law protections such as marital privilege, and others exist.
But it’s certainly a feedback loop, not a straight cause-effect relationship. So the sentence you point to definitely overreaches, and I hope you’ll let me fall back on the context to rescue myself gracefully. I still stand by the basic policy justifications for marriage being what ought to be protected in the legal codification.
quote:Dagonee, you've made you views clear of how you think things ought to be, but do you think there is any chance of abolishing marriage as a legal institution in America, and replacing it with civil unions?
To save time, I'm going to assume that the answer is no. If I'm wrong, feel free to give me 40 lashes with a wet noodle.
If it's never going to happen, why do you even bother to keep brining it up?
MPH, I need to be clear. I’m not in favor of “abolishing marriage.” Rather, I’m in favor of renaming one particular aspect of it, the legal codification of the civil implications of marriage, in order to acknowledge the current, existing reality that the legal codification does not reflect a consensus view of the extra-legal aspects of the institution of marriage.
The legal entity called marriage (of which there are actually 50 or so in this country) would exist exactly the same, except that it would be called “civil union.”
quote: I believe that some European countries already separate legal and religious marriage. People who want both get legally married at the registrar’s office and then go to church for the ceremony. I seem to recall Anna writing about that in her wedding thread. So it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
I remember hearing about this. This is what I had in mind.
quote:Speaking as someone who officiates at weddings, I’ve always found it a little weird that I’m acting as a representative both of the state and of the church in that function. It’s the only time when clergy function as a representative of the state, and there’s just a little cognitive dissonance in it for me. The “separation of church and state” supporter in me is a tad bit squicked by it.
Very good, Dana. This is a consideration as well. I know the Catholic church requires couples receiving the Sacrament of Marriage must comply with the civil norms for the jurisdiction in which they are getting married. Eve and I went to the courthouse and we got the license. The priest then signed the license and turned it in. It would be a very small step to simply turn in the license when we got it, and bring a certified copy to the priest to chow compliance with civil authority.
quote: Banna...your math is missing some bits in the equation. Marriage = Rights + Privileges+ Responsibility + Endorsement by (insert religious Icon Here) + Ceremony + Showers + Cake + (ad nauseum).
Civil Union = Rights and priviledges.
quote: fil I was looking at it from the legal standpoint only. The rights and priveledges are the legal definition. I (as a heterosexual) could go to the courthouse with my bf, and fill out a marriage license and have a judge or justice of the peace sign it, and we would be just as married as if all of the ad nauseum stuff had been tossed in. The legal rights and priveledges *are* the minimum definition of marriage. All of the cultural/religious stuff could (and do) happen with or without the signing of that peice of paper.
fil and AJ, I think you both agree. My interpretation of AJ’s original equation was equating the present and the hypothetical future we’re proposing, and showing why “abolishing” is not the right word. I’m trying to be very precise with terms and still not getting it 100% right all the time.
quote: Yes, but these are stupid people with stupid feelings and stupid fears. It seems counterproductive to hold the whole country hostage to their stupidity, doesn't it?
In a democracy, you have to account for them, especially since the majority of states are now constitutionally prevented from implementing gay marriage through judicial activism, and I stand by my prediction that this court will not interpret the 14th amendment as establishing a federal right to gay marriage.
So since this battle has to be one by touching the hearts and minds of people who disagree with you, calling them stupid may not be the most productive way to go.
quote: I wonder if any of our more religiously minded members would differ with your "minimum definition". When I attended premarital counselling I was brought up short by the Pastor who upbraided me for this type of definition.
Again, I think AJ meant the minimal definition for “legal marriage,” which is all this proposed amendment speaks to. I agree with you – marriage to me is something holy and far beyond a collection of rights, duties, and privileges. It’s a Sacrament given by Eve and I to each other, with rights and duties far, far beyond those legally recognized by the state. What I consider marriage has NEVER been recognized by a state in this country. The differences are so great between the legal institution that exists now and my conception of it that allowing gay couples access to the former in no way expands the difference between it and the latter.
quote: If you're proposing a medicare bill, you don't stop to worry about whether or not there are people out there who think that medicine is a huge fraud being perpetuated by an alien race bent on our destruction; if there ARE such people, you simply dismiss their opinion as being lunatic and unreasonable and move on. I suggest that, in this case, we do the same.
Tom, I think you’re leaping to a conclusion. There are some people in this country not ready to concede what I have conceded – that the legal aspects are merely rights, duties, and responsibilities. They think the societal “blessing” of heterosexual couples raising children is a valid goal of the legal system. There are other examples in the law with similar philosophical views.
For example, hate crime legislation exists not for deterrence’s sake, but to send a special message to both the intended victims of hate crimes and to the potential criminals that the days of getting away with such crimes are over (as best we can accomplish). From a classic 4-point purpose of punishment analysis, the laws are unnecessary. The two leading cases in the 90s, Mathew Shepard and the Texas dragging case (I can’t remember the name) both resulted in life without parole or death for the perpetrators. But, the proponents of hate crime laws speak to the message, not in individual convictions, but in the mere passing of the law.
I happen to oppose the application of this principle in both marriage and hate crime. But I don’t have the hubris to cause the many scholars who disagree with me “stupid.”
posted
Sara, thoughtful post. I would say that it is less valid if the person has not given much thought to it--just going along with what someone has told them to do. If they have done much honest soul-searching and still come to that conclusion, I think it is as valid as any other POV. So while some people seem apt to discount views which are heavily influneced by their faith, I would not. I would discount views that come from any person who has not given careful thought to the idea and is just reacting emotionally. I think there are such people on both sides of any issue--regardless of faith or non-faith.
I can understand you being uncomfortable with any law that restricts the actions of an adult. I am not quite sure how this applies to this thread, though. If we were talking about outlawing homosexual sex, I would be against such a legislation, especially considering that I believe that sexual orientation is often (but not always) an innate part of a person's nature and does not cause enough demonstratable harm to justify legislation.
But we are discussing whether or not marriage is something that happens between a male and female or something that happens between any two consenting adults and what sorts of priviledges (rather than rights) those unions should receive. I am not sure I believe that heterosexuals have any "rights" that homosexuals do not. There does seem to be a disparagy in the priviledge department though, and I think something ought to be done about that.
I think there is demonstratable, tangible reason for society to foster a special status for the male/female union. Even if our world is overpopulated, we still rely on the next generation because we are mortal. And the vast majority of this rising generation is raised up in male/female unions.
Consequently, I think any union involving children deserves special status, homo or hetero. That is where the highest priority lies for society.
quote:Sara, thoughtful post. I would say that it is less valid if the person has not given much thought to it--just going along with what someone has told them to do. If they have done much honest soul-searching and still come to that conclusion, I think it is as valid as any other POV.
What do you mean by "valid"? What words would be synonyms for "valid" as you are using it? (Just trying to understand, not just to put you on the spot. Promise.)
quote:I can understand you being uncomfortable with any law that restricts the actions of an adult. I am not quite sure how this applies to this thread, though.
I was trying to puzzle through why I would consider one point of view more "valid" than another, and I was using the Merriam Webster online definition(s). There might well be other colloquial or individual-specific meanings to the word, I'm sure. It seems to be a word which is sometimes used for emphasis, but not always in ways that are dictionary-specific.
This was a real issue for me as a teacher of a philosophy class, because there is a specific meaning of "valid" in that context which kept getting muddled with more colloquial usage. In trying to work through this with my students, I came to realize how varied the usage in regular conversation really is.
But ths may be a tangent to the conversation for you. If so, it can be ignored with impunity.
quote:Consequently, I think any union involving children deserves special status, homo or hetero. That is where the highest priority lies for society.
I'd add that maintaining a society worth bequeathing to our children is as appropriate as having them, but I realize that there is likely a difference between the religious and the non-religious perspectives here. We'd definitely agree that children are important, I think.
[ October 11, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think a great deal about the use of the word "valid", but looking at the definitions you provided, I was probably using it most like the second definition. That definition refers to something that is logical, well-grounded, etc. Obviously it is legal to vote without thinking, so the first definition doesn't apply.
quote: I'd add that maintaining a society worth bequeathing to our children is as appropriate as having them, but I realize that there is likely a difference between the religious and the non-religious here.
I agree. That is the goal I am shooting for--helping society be the sort of place I think is worth inheriting. Hopefully that is what we are all trying to do. It is not surprising that different people would have different ideas on how best to go about this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that if we made all our decisions based only on demonstratable evidence, we would not be able to function. I also believe that that our "gut feelings" and "intuition" should be taken into account--though not given free reign.
It is in these intangibles that we humans disagree with each other so much. If only we all were more open and honest about what the intangibles were, we would understand each other better. But since intangibles are more open for "attack" than tangibles, we keep them hidden and only march out the demonstratable things for public view--being careful to march out the ones that best support our intangibles. I think we should respect each others "intangibles" more--even as we gently encourage each other to examine them.
Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that the M-W definition 2b (as in "valid argument" or "valid inference") is a technical definition with respect to the field of logic. "Valid" in the sense of "logically correct" is a very specific meaning. It means that the premises of the argument imply the conclusion. It doesn't, however, mean that the conclusion is correct or even reasonable -- in the sense of formal logic, "valid" and "sound" are technically distinct. I think that the meaning you are looking for is probably "sound"?
My sense is that in advocating legislation between persons who may not have the same intangible beliefs, there might be a different appropriate standard for "well-grounded or justifiable." What is justifiable to an individual in his or her own mind may not carry over to another individual if it cannot be demonstrated in some way. Does that make sense?
Of course, this presumes we are talking about legislating the actions of adults. Very young children are not developmentally capable of evaluating claims about harms -- they can barely understand "no." Hopefully, part of raising them is teaching them how to evalate such claims on their own, when you are not there.
(I'm getting ready to go back to sleep, as this head cold has me conked out. )
[ October 11, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it is primarily the intangibles which people fundamentally disagree on, I think. It's difficult to discuss them, but it's probably one of the most important things we do -- especially when we are engaged in making rules for others. I don't worry so much about individual beliefs and faith in things which cannot be perceived except when that is the motivation for legislating restrictions of other adults.
I think of intangibles as similar to anecdotes in that way. They aren't evidence in and of themselves, but they point us to the areas to investigate for evidence. I guess that if we all agreed on the intangibles, I would have less concern about grounding legislation in them -- but if we disagree, and the harms can't be demonstrated, the "justifiability" of the point of view [with regards to deciding for others in particular, that is] is hard for me to understand, at least as being equivalent.
Thanks for the good thoughts. *achoo! Head cold. It will pass, although not without much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
[ October 11, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that if we made all our decisions based only on demonstratable evidence, we would not be able to function. I also believe that that our "gut feelings" and "intuition" should be taken into account--though not given free reign.
I'd agree as well that if we waited for the final evidence on every matter, we'd be paralyzed. But it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between reasons for which it is possible to demonstrate material evidence, and those for which it is impossible to demonstrate evidence for them (i.e., "intangibles" whose effect in the material world cannot be measured).
There are ways of dealing with the former objectively in interpersonal discussions, but not the latter. That's why I have a problem with using such reasons as the (necessary) premises for interpersonal legislation.
But I don't see that as a problem when it is a matter of one individual, because there is no likelihood of discord that is impossible to settle. One's reasons, even if intangible, aren't in dispute.
[ October 11, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My sense is that in advocating legislation between persons who may not have the same intangible beliefs, there might be a different appropriate standard for "well-grounded or justifiable." What is justifiable to an individual in his or her own mind may not carry over to another individual if it cannot be demonstrated in some way. Does that make sense?
I can disagree with someone even as I think their arguments are "well-grounded or justifiable". I can see that they have thought through it. But because of subtle differences in perspective, I look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion. In my mind, both of our conclusions are equally valid. It is when someone isn't thinking about it that I think it slides in it's validity. If someone believes very strongly in their faith, they will take it into account as evidence. Another person will not use that evidence.
You seem to say that if I take into account such evidence--evidence that you do not consider sound but I believe is sound, that you would find my POV to be less "well-grounded and justifiable". I don't look at it that way. If someone uses evidence that I would not use, for instance, from a religion that teaches something different than mine, I would consider their conclusion valid. If they use that evidence and discount all other evidence, I might argue that they are not thinking and consider their conclusions less valid.
An example: A Jewish person would never consider trying to get me to not eat pork. But they believe that law applies to Jews only, not Gentiles. On the other hand, if Hindu believes (forgive me if I am misrepresenting Hindu beliefs--it is due to my ignorance) that I am eating their dead grandfather as I have a Big Mac, I can totally understand them trying to pass legislation against eating cows. They can't prove that that cow is their dead grandfather, but they honestly believe harm is being done. Unfortunately for that person, they would be far in the minority in this country, and such a law would never pass. But in a country where that is the majority religion, I would not at all be surprised if slaughtering a cow for food was against the law. I may not have the same religious views, but I respect what that law means to them. I think their POV is as valid as mine.
If someone's law was in direct conflict with my personal code of morals, then there would be a problem. I would have to rebel against it in some way.
For instance, if I lived in a society where the local Lord reserved the right to have sex with me on my wedding night to my husband. Would I submit to that? I would do everything in my power to fight against such a law. I believe it is grossly immoral.
I am thinking as I go here....
So, to conclude, I guess I would have a hard time viewing the above "gross" law as valid because it so goes against my code of morals.
I wonder, is that how people think of my POV? They have a hard time seeing it as valid because it so goes against their own code of morals?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's the difference between the Hindu's legislation and the Lord's legislation (as outlined above) with regard to validity in the "well-grounded, justifiable" sense to you?
If they both had reasons which were carefully thought-out (even if matters of faith), why would one be valid and not the other?
Isn't that how you've defined "valid"?
(again, just trying to understand)
[ October 11, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, here's some info on Hindus and beef. I can't vouch for the total accuracy, but Belief net is pretty good but not perfect on things I do know about.
posted
Here is the main difference I can think of. The motivation for the laws are completely different. The Hindu is seeking to protect the lives of beloved family and friends. The Hindu believes spirits once residing in humans may now be residing in your hamburger meat.
The Lord is trying to establish supremacy of power through demoralization (using "morale" not "moral") of the people. He is trying to subject them to something unpleasant for his own pleasure and maintanence.
The second reason is morally reprehensible, IMO, and therefore quite different. Even if he thought it through, it is evil. It comes from the mind of a person who does not heed his own conscience.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
