| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2008 02:34:14 PM · #1176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No no no. I think happiness IS good. My whole beef is your thinking such a thing could be shown "empirically" (ie. through science). |
Having empirical knowledge of something does not necessarily imply that we have applied scientific theory to it. Empirical data is one thing, scientific method another. You can empirically know something without rigourous testing. Simply consider that quote I offered from above, which is outside of any scientific method: "The fact that we want the people we love to be happy, and are made happy by love in turn, is an empirical observation." Recall that Sam Harris is a lettered philosopher and scientist. In my view, you are defining terms so strictly here as to make it impossible to move forward. (In fact, it could be one of those controversial "definist" fallacies.) That isn't to say that you must agree with my proposition, but it's difficult to argue a point when you find my terminology inaccurate. I suppose this is a common problem with every conversation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Good" as used in this coversation (ie. moral good) has no context or meaning in the scientific realm and thus "empiric" observation is of no use unless you a priori define good. Your original statement was that "empirically we can show happiness = good" and I asked HOW you would do that without first defining good? And if you already have defined good then the exercise is circular. |
And yet, you yourself think happiness is "good", from your first statement. Why is that? |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 02:57:04 PM · #1177 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you just want to exercise your online debate skills or ability to interpret philosophy and run arguments around in circles, you should just come out and say that. If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
For the record I have stated MANY times that I am for equal rights for gays and civil unions and domestic partnership. Get ahold of yourself before you start going too far in your accusations. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 03:00:25 PM · #1178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
For the record I have stated MANY times that I am for equal rights for gays and civil unions and domestic partnership. Get ahold of yourself before you start going too far in your accusations. |
...and it's been pointed out repeatedly that "civil unions and domestic partnership" are NOT "equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else." That would be marriage.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 15:01:12. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 03:02:43 PM · #1179 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No no no. I think happiness IS good. My whole beef is your thinking such a thing could be shown "empirically" (ie. through science). |
Having empirical knowledge of something does not necessarily imply that we have applied scientific theory to it. Empirical data is one thing, scientific method another. You can empirically know something without rigourous testing. Simply consider that quote I offered from above, which is outside of any scientific method: "The fact that we want the people we love to be happy, and are made happy by love in turn, is an empirical observation." Recall that Sam Harris is a lettered philosopher and scientist. In my view, you are defining terms so strictly here as to make it impossible to move forward. (In fact, it could be one of those controversial "definist" fallacies.) That isn't to say that you must agree with my proposition, but it's difficult to argue a point when you find my terminology inaccurate. I suppose this is a common problem with every conversation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Good" as used in this coversation (ie. moral good) has no context or meaning in the scientific realm and thus "empiric" observation is of no use unless you a priori define good. Your original statement was that "empirically we can show happiness = good" and I asked HOW you would do that without first defining good? And if you already have defined good then the exercise is circular. |
And yet, you yourself think happiness is "good", from your first statement. Why is that? |
Perhaps it was a matter of word usage. I cannot be blamed by any stretch for considering "empirically" to derive from "empirical method". Perhaps I should have just pointed out that we have already shown that suffering does not equal "bad" in lots of people's minds. Happiness does not always equate to good. We used the word "spoiled" to denote such a scenario.
Probably the argument doesn't need to be continued as it's a sidetrack. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 03:02:58 PM · #1180 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
For the record I have stated MANY times that I am for equal rights for gays and civil unions and domestic partnership. Get ahold of yourself before you start going too far in your accusations. |
...and it's been pointed out repeatedly that "civil unions and domestic partnership" are NOT "equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else." That would be marriage. |
Then I'm for fighting to make them so. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 03:26:20 PM · #1181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Then I'm for fighting to make them so. |
I think current legal precedent (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) is that separate is inherently unequal.
In case you didn't notice, no religious sect has a trademark on the use of the word "marriage" -- the State can use it any way it pleases without affecting its meaning within your church, and its use by the state and your church are really the only areas which should be of concern to you. How Islamists, Mormons, Jews, Jains, Hindus, or atheists define the word for their own purposes is really none of your business, so long as it doesn't violate state law or infringe your congregation's freedom to practice according to its own rules. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 03:32:10 PM · #1182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
For the record I have stated MANY times that I am for equal rights for gays and civil unions and domestic partnership. Get ahold of yourself before you start going too far in your accusations. |
...and it's been pointed out repeatedly that "civil unions and domestic partnership" are NOT "equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else." That would be marriage. |
Then I'm for fighting to make them so. |
So, if you think "civil unions" should be completely identical to marriage in all respects, so that they are indistinguishable from marriages in terms of the civil rights accorded to the parties involved, then your quarrel becomes one of labeling civil unions as "marriages". Given the discussion we just had about empiricism, you seem predisposed to valuing definitions above most everything else -- or else you are so intent on defining terms that the definitions themselves become more important than the issues. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 03:45:58 PM · #1183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
For the record I have stated MANY times that I am for equal rights for gays and civil unions and domestic partnership. Get ahold of yourself before you start going too far in your accusations. |
...and it's been pointed out repeatedly that "civil unions and domestic partnership" are NOT "equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else." That would be marriage. |
Then I'm for fighting to make them so. |
As long as they don't call a marriage between two people of the same sex a "marriage", is that it?
Sounds an awful lot like "Separate but equal" to me.
I think the example of what the French do is an excellent approach. Remove all civil authority to perform legally recognized marriages from the church (no more "By the powers vested in me by the state of...") and require a civil ceremony to make a legal marriage with the religious ceremony optional (from a legal standpoint anyway).
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 15:51:44. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 04:19:05 PM · #1184 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sounds an awful lot like "Separate but equal" to me. |
I believe this has been done to death in the posts way above. My position was to call everything a "civil union" and leave the word "marriage" to the church. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 04:30:02 PM · #1185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My position was to call everything a "civil union" and leave the word "marriage" to the church. |
Precisely. You're all for equality... as long as they can't use the term "marriage" because they're not equal. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 05:09:20 PM · #1186 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not here to argue the specifics of Christianity. The truth of the matter is many, many religious people (not just Christian) hold it to be a "self-evident" truth that homosexuality is forbidden. |
The difference here is that the religious person will say "It is forbidden!" while the secular homophobe will say "I won't tolerate it!"
And the religious person brings out a book written two thousand years ago and claims the book labels homosexuality as anathema, and says this justifies his beliefs. The secular homophobe points to thousands of years of consistent persecution of homosexuals and uses that as justification; "See, I'm not alone, you can't fight this perception because it's always been around."
Both are ignoring the evolution of social mores (as opposed to "absolute morality", assuming such exists), and are cherry picking their book or their history to justify the singling-out of homosexuals as a group that should remain exempt from the ongoing adjustment of social mores that has been taking place since humans first gathered in clans and tribes.
And for WHAT? To guards against what great danger? It's freakin' ridiculous, and all this intellectualizing is beginning to look repulsive to me. Come ON, folks! This is just people loving people! What's the harm of that? Really?
R. |
I think I disagree with this in a number of ways, but I won't dissect it.
I am generally conflicted by this issue. I feel "love one another" is near the center of my faith. I also feel that morality is more properly conservative (meaning staying the same) rather than progressive (meaning evolving). Finally I do feel I have the right to participate in self-government. If someone asks me, "do you agree with this?" I have the right to say yes or no.
I can only blame myself for getting back into this, but I'll once again attempt an extrication. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 06:10:37 PM · #1187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you really believe that homosexuals don't deserve equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else as you've been arguing all along. |
For the record I have stated MANY times that I am for equal rights for gays and civil unions and domestic partnership. Get ahold of yourself before you start going too far in your accusations. |
...and it's been pointed out repeatedly that "civil unions and domestic partnership" are NOT "equal treatment and access to the same rights and privileges as everyone else." |
But they could be MADE to be equal, at least as far as states rights are concerned. And they could be made to be equal with far less effort than overturning a constitutional amendment. The Domestic Partnership laws can be changed by the legislative branch of state government, WITHOUT requiring approval by the general public. OR, the state can pass legislation that requires EVERYONE to form "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" for legal purposes - essentially putting the state out of the "marriage" business.
I'd love to see the federal government rule on whether a male-female domestic partnership would be entitled to file as "married" on their Income Tax return, since the IRS defines "marriage" as "a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife". Seems that a domestic partnership would qualify as a "legal union" for tax purposes.
Originally posted by scalvert:
That would be marriage. |
No, it wouldn't - at least not until the federal DOMA is overturned. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon. |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 08:25:40 PM · #1188 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
That would be marriage. |
No, it wouldn't - at least not until the federal DOMA is overturned. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon. |
Um, yes it would, and yes it will. It's simply not possible to make two things equal in all respects if you refuse to recognize them as such. You cannot say they're both like marriage, but one isn't "really" a marriage. It's sheer hypocrisy, and no amount of convoluted rationalization will change that. Second class citizens are not full citizens. Note that DOMA has not even been ruled constitutional (the supreme court hasn't taken up the issue yet), and president-elect Barack Obama's political platform includes full repeal of the DOMA. The determination of people to openly practice such discrimination is absolutely mind boggling. The Republican Party has endorsed a proposal to protect DOMA from judicial scrutiny. Incredible. They're so worried that DOMA would be found unconstitutional, that they would actually try to bypass the courts altogether. How utterly un-American! |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 08:36:12 PM · #1189 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
How utterly un-American! |
You seem to have an extra un- in there.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2008 08:37:46 PM · #1190 |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 09:16:03 PM · #1191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Finally I do feel I have the right to participate in self-government. If someone asks me, "do you agree with this?" I have the right to say yes or no. |
Nobody has argued that you shouldn't be allowed to vote or express an opinion. What is being argued is no one group should have their religious beliefs elevated into law especially when it infringes upon another group's beliefs and you disagree. You acknowledge the fact that we're a melting pot of values and beliefs yet rather than take the most logical approach, that is only consider putting into law what is universally excepted across all groups, you favor just making your group the authority. No amount of philosophical meanderings is going to change the fact that your argument smacks of selfishness.
Message edited by author 2008-11-19 21:26:47.
|
|
|
|
11/19/2008 09:31:48 PM · #1192 |
As I said before, Prop 8 and DOMA will both be defeated as unconstitutional, and by pressing the issue California voters have unwittingly accelerated the process-
"In its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court's eyes.
The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights 'so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.'" |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 11:06:34 PM · #1193 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sounds an awful lot like "Separate but equal" to me. |
I believe this has been done to death in the posts way above. My position was to call everything a "civil union" and leave the word "marriage" to the church. |
Which church? Our church performs gay marriages. Would you recognise one as as valid as your marriage and as worthy of being called marriage because it was performed in a church? Correct me if I misunderstood an earlier post, but you feel the sanctity of your marriage is cheapened by gays calling their unions marriage. So how would a church marriage fit into that?
I think it's far too late to leave the word "marriage" to the church anyway, since it has never, to my knowledge, been exclusively theirs in the first place. (I've tried and failed to trace the word to its earliest usage. Anyone else know?) |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 11:13:21 PM · #1194 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sounds an awful lot like "Separate but equal" to me. |
I believe this has been done to death in the posts way above. My position was to call everything a "civil union" and leave the word "marriage" to the church. |
... and what if your church opted to perform gay marriages, would that somehow lessen the value of your union. Similarly, which church are you speaking about... all denominations, or only that to which you are affiliated.
As you are probably aware, gay marriages are performed by churches in Canada... would you recognize these as being valid or not.
I truly have a hard time understanding all of this resistance to an activity that has absolutely no impact on the well being of others... and none of the arguments proffered so far have changed my line of thinking one iota.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/19/2008 11:43:07 PM · #1195 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My position was to call everything a "civil union" and leave the word "marriage" to the church. |
Precisely. You're all for equality... as long as they can't use the term "marriage" because they're not equal. :-/ |
Of course that leaves those churches that are open minded enough to accept marriage between two men or two women as a valid option in a bind. Would such a ceremony result in a "civil union" or a "marriage"? |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 01:36:31 AM · #1196 |
On October 4, I was delighted to be among those who witnessed and celebrated the marriage of Eileen and Judith in a church. The pastor most certainly called this union a marriage.
Me thinks the cat is out of the proverbial bag. No way is it going to be stuffed back in. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 02:09:56 AM · #1197 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
On October 4, I was delighted to be among those who witnessed and celebrated the marriage of Eileen and Judith in a church. The pastor most certainly called this union a marriage.
Me thinks the cat is out of the proverbial bag. No way is it going to be stuffed back in. |
That's now two cats Jason is trying to put back in the bag. The other one being the issue of sex and violence on tv. What Doc needs is a time machine for Christmas. :P
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 02:11:15.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 05:46:34 AM · #1198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My position was to call everything a "civil union" and leave the word "marriage" to the church. |
Then you're validating the gay marriages that have already been performed by the UU churches here in Pennsylvania.
Those couples will be so relieved!.......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 09:30:13 AM · #1199 |
Seeing as we are occasionally getting all mathematical about this, maybe a diagram can help
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 10:27:24 AM · #1200 |
On liberal and conservative morality
(NB I haven't actually had a chance to listen to this, but most TED talks have been interesting in the past) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 01:08:06 PM EDT.
