posted
There are many problems in the world that would be solved if everybody had sex with at most one person in their lifetime. Do those problems justify banning pre-marital sex?
Dagonee
Edit: This was a comment on this portion of one of Alcon's posts:
quote:b) laws that have real, well supported scienctific reasons to behind them. An example would be drug laws. Drugs are proven to be harmful to users and people around them often (drunk driving).
c) Laws with facts and statistics that can be debated. Kind of connects with the scientific reason. But an example, would be outlawing drinking. The statistics are their to argue, and if the arguement is made that there is enough damage done from drinking to merit outlawing it, then if that gets voted in its a good basis for making a law.
posted
Ok say take a religion that applies at least some of its rules to none members, take that rule, and insert. (Do I need to clarify more, or have I gotten to a point where the analogy holds?)
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now the problem is . . . in Judaism, at least, most of the rules that apply to all (like that murder one) are agreed on (more or less) by all as being Good Rules.
So there are very few rules left to use as analogies. And most of those ARE the hotly debated issues, and thus not useful as analogies for other hotly contested issues.
posted
I think the analogy holds, but I think there's actually very little that fits under it.
Most religions consider those laws that apply to all to have positive effects in this life (or to prevent negative effects in this life).
Ultimately, every law has to rely on an unproven (and scientifically unprovable) assertion that "X is good" or "X is bad." There must be a way to distinguish between those assertions that justify a law and those that do not.
For example, while it is scientifically provable that drugs kill, why is the fact they kill reason to make them illegal?
posted
Dag will now be giving a free internet course on laws and morality. No signup necesary, just read this thread.
Wow... My head is going into a spin now. I think I'm going to keep reading, but my mind is going into shut down mode... its nearly my evening nap time, so I think I'm going to stop trying to add stuff. We've gotten over my head Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading all this i am so confused that it's not worth it. I'm gonna quit with this argument:
One of the main arguments for gay marriage is that they love each other. Fine, i do not doubt that they do, but just because they love each other is no reason to allow marriage. If a man loves his dog, should they be allowed to be married? Marriage has been and should continue to be between one man and one woman. Discriminating against gays is different than discriminating against, say, whites, blacks or hispanics. Gays decide to live that lifestyle, while one cannot decide not to live as a white, black or hispanic.
For the record, I have no negative feelings towards gays. I have several friends who are gay and i get along with them fine. I just feel that marriage (and the benifits that apply) should be kept as they once were.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, some flaws with the analogy in your argument: whether or not the man loves his dog in the same way as a husband loves his wife, the dog does not love the man in the way a wife loves a husband. So your analogy is pretty darn stupid from the get-go.
Second, A dog is not a consenting human being (another major flaw). Also, the reasons for many of the benefits of marriage (such as being able to make medical decisions when the spouse is incapacitated) are there because we accept the love between the two people and the importance for each other consequent of that love. To give such rights only to people of opposite sexes is to undermine our very reason for granting those privileges, by saying that it is not the bond between them that is important, but the sex of the people in the bond.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and then we can point out that allowing marriage between a man and a dog does not stabilize society, whereas allowing marriage between people of the same sex does, as it allows them to participate in the same way as other married couples, setting up stable households, supporting each other so the two are more secure than the one, et cetera.
If I seem a bit dismissive, its because I am. You made a very stupid argument that's been slapped down here and elsewhere repeatedly, and that you bothered making it reflects that either you don't have the wit to understand the replies, or you've paid so little attention you shouldn't be commenting as if your statement somehow brought something new and important to the debate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:because we accept the love between the two people and the importance for each other consequent of that love.
Obviously not everybody does. That's what Peter was saying.
quote:Oh, and then we can point out that allowing marriage between a man and a dog does not stabilize society, whereas allowing marriage between people of the same sex does,
You can state that, but it will not be agreed upon by both sides.
posted
I'm curious, then, what do you think the reasoning for allowing married people to make medical decisions for each other is?
Also, I gave specific examples as to how allowing homosexual marriage would stabilize society. Would you do me the courtesy of attempting to refute them instead of ignoring them?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the main arguments for gay marriage is that they love each other. Fine, i do not doubt that they do, but just because they love each other is no reason to allow marriage. If a man loves his dog, should they be allowed to be married? Marriage has been and should continue to be between one man and one woman.
Peter, I'd like you to elaborate on the last sentence of that quote. Why should marriage continue to be that way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presumably because it has been and love alone is no good reason to change its meaning, as illustrated by his example of marriage to a dog?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the first page only, but I have to say, unless things turned around in the later threads, it's about time Hatrack got this sort. We'd gotten a lot of the other sort in the past few months that I was afraid the universe was out of balance.
If things have improved in the thread, I apologize in advance, but the first page wasn't exactly a great first impression.
quote:whereas allowing marriage between people of the same sex does, as it allows them to participate in the same way as other married couples, setting up stable households, supporting each other so the two are more secure than the one, et cetera.
The only deal here is that it's extremely debatable whether or not homosexual marriage in America would actually be "stable". Notice I don't say that it is for sure unstable, it's just debatable.
But I'm a hard person to argue with on this subject, because almost my entire defense stems from the fact that I'm a Christian and I simply follow what the Bible says. If you wanna argue with me on that subject, fine, but not here.
quote:whether or not the man loves his dog in the same way as a husband loves his wife, the dog does not love the man in the way a wife loves a husband.
So what would be wrong with a man marrying his sister, or marrying more than one woman, if they love each other, and it would create for a more stable society, as they'd be able to support each other in the way they want to?
Posts: 48 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Presumably because it has been and love alone is no good reason to change its meaning, as illustrated by his example of marriage to a dog?"
I'd like to see him prove that his dog consented to marriage.
--------------
"But I'm a hard person to argue with on this subject, because almost my entire defense stems from the fact that I'm a Christian and I simply follow what the Bible says. If you wanna argue with me on that subject, fine, but not here."
Where would be a good place? I'm always up for that argument. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to see him prove that his dog consented to marriage.
He could go to one of them "animal psychics" or something. (?)
quote:"But I'm a hard person to argue with on this subject, because almost my entire defense stems from the fact that I'm a Christian and I simply follow what the Bible says. If you wanna argue with me on that subject, fine, but not here."
Where would be a good place? I'm always up for that argument. *grin*
Bring it. You could start a new topic if you wanted. I'm not going to start a "religion war" in here until I've posted a little more. Posts: 48 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would you do me the courtesy of attempting to refute them instead of ignoring them?
I would prefer not to, but I'll do you the courtesy saying so. You said that you could just "point out" something as though it should be obvious to everyone.
I'm saying that I disagree with this thing you've pointed out.
But, no, I don't feel like expaining to you why.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion on how laws should be analyzed for their appropriateness:
1) Any law that ALLOWS behavior is a good law, if it can be shown to have pragmatic benefits, or pragmatic and demonstrable lessening of negatives that currently exist in society
2) Any law that RESTRICTS behavior is a good law, if it can be shown pragmatically to reduce social ill(s) without restricting non-destructive pragmatic behaviors
3) Any law that FUNDS the government is essentially a variation on 2)
Basically, I'm asking that in a society that is rather pluralistic as the USA is, metaphysical repurcussions should be outside the purview of the US government, especially since Amendment 1, to me, implicitly restricts the US government from codifying such positions as would allow ruling on metaphysical repurcussions.
I believe that society, with or without a God, in its "natural" state is an antagonistic anarchy. That is, everything is permissable by default. Only through social pressures, whether violence or coercion (like growing up under a certain ideology, bribery, or implied violence) are things like rights and responsibilities defined and honed. I also think that some laws, useful in the past may not be useful in the future (imo, this includes same-sex marriage), and that some laws that weren't necessary in the past, are so now, or in the future (I think that certain, no brainer restrictions on 2nd amendment rights, like private ownership of surface-to-air missiles, are applicable under my opinion here). Just because something, within the scope of law and government, has been a legal construct for ages, does not mean it needs to continue to be, and vice versa. Things that conservatives want to bring back, say from the 1950s (where there were good things) didn't exist in the 1900s. And even most conservatives don't want to bring everything back from the 1950s.
If God gives us free will, then I think, even if we are given instructions, my idea of antagonistic anarchy as the default is true (and isn't even a novel idea in political science). Our "God given" rights, while a beautiful phrase, are really human-given rights, but since our existence is contingent upon God in this worldview, it ultimately is still God-given, just not in the ways that most people consider it. If you follow a God, please, follow Him/Her/It/Them. Try to convince others to follow. teach your children to follow. but don't restrict people without your worldview to be restricted in action, by law, because of something that might happen to them in the Hereafter. The government is not designed, and shouldn't be designed, imo, to enforce metaphysically condemning behaviors in the here and now.
This, of course, is my opinion, and doubt many have this same set of assumptions...
Although, seriously folks, you all should agree with me. I mean you're all bright people; smarter than me. Why haven't you figured this all out by now??
posted
It's a restriction of action. If you can show that in this earthly existence there are repurcussions that outweigh the benefits (and this is ultimately subjective, I admit), then you have an argument. However, you can't argue solely on tradition, to me anyway, and you can't appeal to damnation in the Afterlife, since the government should be silent on the latter (to pass a law restricting gay marriage is either: a tacit establishment of a part of a majority's religion, even if it could be applicable to a bunch of separate religions, like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, in this case; or, it's appealling to tradition for the sake of an essentially aesthetic preference, and tangible, pragmatic effects from a proposed law trump beauty, in mo opinion.
For the record (and I even wrote this to my state (MA) rep when the hullaballoo of a MA state constitutional convention was going on about possible amendments to overrule the Goodrich decision), I am in complete favor to granting same-sex couples who go through the same paperwork as a heterosexual couple, to receive the benefits and responsibilities of a civil marriage. It seems to me to be the easiest and most streamlined way to grant this equality, avoiding all the work to create a separate civil union chapter in the law, or to change civil marriage to civil union. THAT said, I also wrote that I myself would not necessarily be in favor of allowing a same sex marriage to occur in my church. I am still conflicted about that, given what I believe to understand about my religion.
posted
I'll elaborate a tad... It's a restriction, because by default everything is allowed. It may have been restricted, but the subsequent amendment to the MA state constitution that Goodrich ruled as being applicable reopened it as being allowed, even if it wasn't immediately evident (emmergent behavior, and all that).
posted
Why is it a restriction? Legal recognition of marriage definitely isn't a "default" that's allowed.
In other words, since Lawrence, there's no legal rule that stops two people from living together and acting as spouses act toward each other.
As it stands right now, two gay people can get married in a church or secular marriage ceremony. They will not receive the legal benefits of marriage, but they also aren't restricted.
What I'm getting at is that you're leaving out at least one category of - legal subsidy or encouragement of behavior.
posted
I think that category is included in my categories, since the reason subsidy or promotion/discrimination of an act is done is either to protect the person that might act that way from some damage (Drunk driving laws) or to promote something that is believed to benefit society (like only heterosexual marriage). My contention is that while such beliefs are fine to hold and teach and convince others with, in a personal sphere, within the scope of the government, they ought to be justified using concrete, in this lifetim, effects.
posted
Yes, but in the case of gay marriage, it isn't that behavior is being restricted so much as behavior is not receiving the same legal encouragement as similar behavior in others. So I don't think your categories cover that.
If the government provides a subsidy of some sort, whether it's farms, medicare, or marriage privileges, there has to be a reason to restrict them to a particular industry, say, or only to heterosexual couples. The same-sex marriage decision in MA is good, IMO, in that it provides a boon to a subset of society without any tangible restriction to others. The onus is on those that would restrict it to put forth a pragmatic rationale whereby restricting marriage would provide a greater benefit to society, either by stopping demonstrably immediate dangerous non-consensual behavior, without restricting liberty unacceptably.
posted
But clearly the cost of a subsidy/encouragement compared to the benefit to society of the encouraged behavior is relevant to subsidy questions, right? So wouldn't it be a valid argument that extending benefit X to group Y costs more than the expected return, so we shouldn't do it?
A similar analysis in which I reach the opposite result is why I favor legalized civil gay marriage.
posted
That would be valid (the negative of the cost is in terms of money, in this case), but I don't see how that can be made here. Or rather, if that's the rationale, then you have to convince people that the cost is exorbinant. That's a fine argument, though in this particular case, I don't think it can be made to me successfully.
Of course, I'm in topsy-turvy land, where the opponents of same-sex marriage are not on the side of the current law, so that may be my difference.
posted
I'm interested in it more in the theoretical sense - your scheme doesn't seem to have a place for that kind of analysis. I think a new category is needed, something about assigning of government benefits or what attributes can be used in determining who gets a benefit.
posted
I think it's implicit in the categories above... Much as I said for #3. If you are providing money or privileges (or restricting people from such things) you ought to abide by whether more good than bad, in a this-worldly sense, is happening.
That said, there's also a lot of leeway to have differences of opinion in the weighting of such things. My categories don't address that, nor do I really want to. I don't pretend to have thought up a legal Rosetta Stone here It's just as easy to accept my premises, and still come out completely against something I'm for.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You could start a new topic if you wanted. I'm not going to start a "religion war" in here until I've posted a little more. 
