| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2005 07:31:07 PM · #726 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We already covered underage marriage and nobody is suggesting interspecies marriage. That's as relevant to this conversation as marrying a banana. |
35 years ago, nobody was suggesting homosexual marriage, either. But...here we are.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:34:07 PM · #727 |
| 2,500 years ago, nobody was suggesting Christian marriage. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:44:35 PM · #728 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
2,500 years ago, nobody was suggesting Christian marriage. |
Exactly. The very point I was making. Just because it wasn't or isn't, don't assume it won't be. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:47:58 PM · #729 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
What is it WITH YOU and trying to use the shock value of sex with children or animals? CONSENT doesn't exist in any material way in those cases, consent exists here. This is not about child or animal abuse, its about whether consenting adults should be granted legal rights with respect to their committed relationships with one another. Please. You have raised this issue many times and I find it repulsive to logic and a cheap smoke and mirrors argument.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:50:23 PM · #730 |
From the examples you gave, I took your point to be that just because it doesn't already exist, it must be bad. What does historical legality have to do with anything? Ditto Frisca's comments.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 19:51:36. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:08:25 PM · #731 |
Originally posted by RonB:
What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Well 150 years ago it was legal for a 40 year old man to not only have sex with a 9 year old, but to marry said 9 year old. So does this mean we are moving forward or backwards?
Clara
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:03:55 PM · #732 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by RonB:
What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Well 150 years ago it was legal for a 40 year old man to not only have sex with a 9 year old, but to marry said 9 year old. So does this mean we are moving forward or backwards?
Clara |
Are you talking about Neverland Ranch? |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:11:58 PM · #733 |
| The main reason I became bored with this thread was because there was no one willing to debate the whole "literal" versus "figurative" or "subjective" translations of the Biblical texts. For whatever reasons, people continue to use literal arguements whenever it suits their arguments and then fall back on figurative or subjective ones when literal arguments don't hold water. It's a futile endeavor from my point of view. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:27:11 PM · #734 |
oh damn.. what thread.. too much to read in one sitting.
I want the readers digest version...
If it even matters I celebrate love anywhere it happens, although I am straight and married I am proud to have many friends who are gay, straight, bisexual and yes,I even have one dear friend who is a transsexual. Each of these friends have enriched my life and made me a better person. It is a shame that this country is more concerned about sexual preference than we are about starving children and soldiers dying in Iraq.
This country has gone to hell in handbag in the past few years, the "right" is taking over and each day we lose a little more freedom. I hope to hell we, as a country, wake up and get our head out of out asses and start fighting for our rights again.
Okay, I think I am done now...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:44:29 PM · #735 |
Originally posted by khdoss:
oh damn.. what thread.. too much to read in one sitting.
I want the readers digest version...
If it even matters I celebrate love anywhere it happens, although I am straight and married I am proud to have many friends who are gay, straight, bisexual and yes,I even have one dear friend who is a transsexual. Each of these friends have enriched my life and made me a better person. It is a shame that this country is more concerned about sexual preference than we are about starving children and soldiers dying in Iraq.
This country has gone to hell in handbag in the past few years, the "right" is taking over and each day we lose a little more freedom. I hope to hell we, as a country, wake up and get our head out of out asses and start fighting for our rights again.
Okay, I think I am done now... |
The "right" has heard your call to arms, and have taken your advice to get their heads out of their a$$es and have started fighting for their rights again - just as you hoped to hell they would.
You DID hope to hell that THEY, as part of the country, would wake up and fight for THEIR rights, too, didn't you? |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 11:51:14 PM · #736 |
OK, Reader's Digest version. There have been two parallel discussions here: one on Homosexual Marriage and the other on the contention that the Bible is literal, historical fact. On the first...
Originally posted by scalvert:
...the gist of that discussion was that the idea of marriage would be so corrupted by interracial couples interreligious couples buddhists convicted murderers atheists homosexuals getting married that the only solution is to ban the practice. Oh, and there is no bigotry involved. |
On the second issue we are hearing that macro evolution over billions of years is too much to believe, but dinosaurs, lions and penguins living together as vegetarians on an ark built by 600+ year old people to withstand several hundred inches of rain per hour continuously for 40 days from an atmosphere dense enough to block out all light and crush a modern submarine (all at a time more recent than the invention of boats) makes total sense.
Do read the thread when you get a chance. It's very enlightening. ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 00:11:42. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:06:20 AM · #737 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You DID hope to hell that THEY, as part of the country, would wake up and fight for THEIR rights, too, didn't you? |
For which rights should they be fighting, pray tell (to use a figure of speech)? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:17:02 AM · #738 |
"Fighting for the right to fight the right fight for the Right"
--Michael L. Brown, The John Birch Society (1961) |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 02:22:04 AM · #739 |
You know, the funny thing about food? It looks soo good goin' in, but it looks like (in the words of kpriest) chit comin' out.
Lets agree to disagree, because the white stuff on top of chicken poop is still chicken poop.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:35:19 AM · #740 |
Originally posted by jsas:
You know, the funny thing about food? It looks soo good goin' in, but it looks like (in the words of kpriest) chit comin' out.
Lets agree to disagree, because the white stuff on top of chicken poop is still chicken poop. |
Sorry, don't understand American analogy!
Hardly think we will agree to disagree as it is an important area to discuss and while we may not change our minds, others reading the thread may have cause for thought!
Besides it's fun!
:)
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:56:41 AM · #741 |
I am just speaking jiberish, don't take me serious.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:14:49 AM · #742 |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:47:55 AM · #743 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by RonB:
What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Well 150 years ago it was legal for a 40 year old man to not only have sex with a 9 year old, but to marry said 9 year old. So does this mean we are moving forward or backwards?
|
Are you talking about Neverland Ranch? |
Actually I'm talking about women as property. For hundreds of years, the institution of marriage has not been about love and mutual attraction. It's been about securing property. Heck, read any period based novel about the 19th century and you'll see that.
The concept of marriage as something more than just a property transfer is a new concept. Over time Western society has moved from property as the main focus to emotional connection as the reason.
Now bad jokes aside, child marriage was STILL looked at with a raised eyebrow. Western society has a deep seeded perception that there is an age where a child cannot consent. I do not see that shifting over time so that 9 year olds can consent. Even 150 years ago, it wasn't truly the child consenting it was the parents.
The argument that allowing homeosexual marriage will change the institution of marriage is correct. But the institution has been changing for the last 100 years in any case. Good or bad, change in any area in inevitable. As my dad says, "you can't unscramble an egg".
This will happen in our lifetime. Arguing against it will not unscramble the egg. It just delays the cooking process.
Clara
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 08:53:11 AM · #744 |
Originally posted by khdoss:
I hope to hell we, as a country, wake up and get our head out of out asses and start fighting for our rights again. |
I sympathise with your post, but I don't like this part of your statement. I think that a lot of the issues plaguing modern society arise out of people pursuing what they perceive to be their "rights". The following is something that I have been thinking about a lot, and is still only semi-formed.
What is a Right?
"Rights" are a difficult subject. I think that they are essentially a power or privilege to a particular state of enjoyment or possession (I have not yet found a good dictionary definition). A right is inherently defensible against other people.
Where do rights come from?
Rights arise legally by virtue of consitutional legislation (in the US, through state and federal constitution, in Europe by a variety of constitutional law such as EU human rights law and national constitutions). These tend to be written and/or defined. And they are regularly excused in written exceptions, on policy grounds and in practice.
People also refer to moral rights, or rights arising out of natural law. These are usually very subjective in appearance, as philosophy cannot provide a comprehensive (or even substantive) justification for them. The argument most effectively used in favour of there being a natural law is that such law must exist, because human behaviour tends towards it. But rarely are attempts made to reduce it to definitive writing (the main argument against natural law is that it cannot be defined), and it remains a nebulous affair.
Increased focus on personal rights
I believe that society is becoming increasingly focussed on rights, and enforcing its rights. This is because we are increasiongly encouraged towards individualism. By this, I mean that we are encouraged to be different, to have a strong sense of self-worth and self-importance. Advertisers pick up on this, in everything from the mod car scene, to your burger (BK's "have it your way") to something as ironically ubiquitous as the iPod ("Be different"). Associated with an increased importance of self is the stronger assertion of personal rights.
However, rights, as well as being defensible against third parties, also impinge upon those third parties, and potentially upon their rights. Where two individuals have competing rights there should usually (IMO) be a compromise. This is the effect of the practical, policy and practical exceptions applied as against legal rights, and flows (reasonably) naturally in respect of natural rights.
Impact of Individualism within Society
Within a community the same rights may be broadly recognised and mutual benefits might be appreciated. However, unassociated individuals have less comprehension of the nature of any competing rights and any mutual benefit. Whereas compromise might be achievable within a community, outside that community there is a lesser incentive to do so.
In the individualised society, we place greater respect on our own rights as we perceive them, and have less appreciation of, and less regard for, the rights of others (as they perceive them). The result is greater conflict and misgiving as the strong enforce their rights against, uncomprehendingly, and in contravention of, the rights of the weak.
Conclusion
It is important, I think, to realise that "rights" are not fixed; that we rely on them in the context of a society; and that in the case of competing rights, it is impossible for everyone to enforce their respective rights in full and without compromise.
[Edit: needed some headings]
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 09:04:12.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 09:07:03 AM · #745 |
Good post Beagle. The problem is that religious fundamentalists (of any persuasion) believe their rights and morals to be laws set down from the highest authority, and not subject to compromise. Thus we get Muslim-Jewish, Catholic-Protestant, Sunni-Shiite, and Muslim-Hindu conflicts that are difficult, if not impossible, to resolve through diplomacy. In the minds of the faithful, no government authority can override religious convictions that the other guy is doing something wrong, even though each religion represents a minority of the world's population.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 10:50:49. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 09:52:29 AM · #746 |
The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841 - 1935) |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:10:12 AM · #747 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ). |
Is this a fact or an exageration to help prove your point? :)
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:14:16 AM · #748 |
Great thread, and im glad the compairing a homosexual relationship with fucking a horse or child abuse has been dealt with. It's ever tiring seeing that BS popup over and over.
Some wisdom from one of our countries founders;
"It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read."
Thomas Jefferson
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 10:15:05. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:38:39 AM · #749 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The problem is that religious fundamentalists (of any persuasion) believe their rights and morals to be laws set down from the highest authority, and not subject to compromise. |
Interesting.
I would argue that rights do not arise as a consequence of personal belief. For a right to be meaningful, it must be enforceable against a third party.
Enforcement in the modern world takes several forms and varies in nature depending upon scale.
Within a state, the state's constitution and law are generally upheld. It is not generally possible to enforce a right that is outside that constitution. Within a religious state, religiously originating rights are more likely to form part of the constitution.
There is a limited international constitution in respect of certain areas of law (eg human rights, war crimes) enforceable by virtue of international courts. Otherwise, only natural law (to the extent that it exists) prevails. In respect of national interests, enforcement is by way of politics and by force of arms. If the leadership of a state believes that it has a particular right, and it has the power and motivation to enforce that right, then there is little to gainsay it. It does not matter whether the origin of the claimed right is religious or not, except that arbitrarily determined rights (such as most religiously originating rights) will be more likely to be objectionable to those upon whom they are imposed.
If a party acts outside the scope of state control (such as an international terrorist), there may be practical difficulties with forcing them to comply with the local law. Absent control, they are nearer the position of states rather than individuals. However, they do not (currently) appear to have the power to enforce their religious "rights" upon others.
Most states act in the modern world in a responsible manner in the mutual interest. Most states do not make their international policy based upon arbitrarily determined religious grounds, as this would tend to cause tension and unrest (a strong reason for the separation of religion and state).
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 10:40:47.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:43:07 AM · #750 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
...I would argue that rights do not arise as a consequence of personal belief. For a right to be meaningful, it must be enforceable against a third party. ... |
I haven't dealt with natural law very well, here, but that is partly because I personally don't really think that it exists (at least not philosophically).
|
|
