| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2010 01:36:28 AM · #3926 |
Perhaps I was incorrect in my example, but I still hold by my intention. Shannon is speaking well as the relativist he claims to be, but he does not speak for me. An opening paragraph by Lewis sums up my feeling about it. I think it holds for individuals. I think it holds for societies. And, I suppose, if the rationalists disagree, then there's not much they can do about it. I am that other clan who "do not have enough in common, in terms of either shared concepts or shared standards, to resolve their differences" with you. But what can you do? Just grin and bear it, I guess.
Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and
sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we
can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they
say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to
you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing
you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bit of your
orange, I gave you a bit of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things
like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as
well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the
man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does
not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of
behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man
very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to
make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the
standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there
is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the
seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he
was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him
off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had
in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or
morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.
And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals,
but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means
trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no
sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as
to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that
a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the
rules of football.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 02:22:20 AM · #3927 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no
sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the
rules of football. |
...and therein lies the problem Doc. In football, all of the participant know and adhere to a prescribed set of rules that everyone understands and tacitly agrees to. Such is not the case in life, at least not on a universal plane. Yes there are some rules that most societies agree to, but even in instances where we address the issue of "Termination of life"...it can arise, depending on circumstances, that it is NOT ALWAYS called murder, nor is the activity deemed illegal.
Everything is perspective. To this end I am reminded of the following quote, which might give us a glance as to just how it is that we view things somewhat differently:
There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. ‥These ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the Summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both.
[1921 W. B. Masterson in Morning Telegraph (NY) 27 Oct. 7]
Have a wonderful day :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-01-08 02:35:38. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 07:09:15 AM · #3928 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no
sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the
rules of football. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and therein lies the problem Doc. In football, all of the participant know and adhere to a prescribed set of rules that everyone understands and tacitly agrees to. Such is not the case in life, at least not on a universal plane. Yes there are some rules that most societies agree to, but even in instances where we address the issue of "Termination of life"...it can arise, depending on circumstances, that it is NOT ALWAYS called murder, nor is the activity deemed illegal.
Everything is perspective. To this end I am reminded of the following quote, which might give us a glance as to just how it is that we view things somewhat differently:
There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. These ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the Summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both.
[1921 W. B. Masterson in Morning Telegraph (NY) 27 Oct. 7]
Have a wonderful day :O)
Ray |
One of the most telling things to me about the slding scale of morality is marital fidelity. I can't tell you how appalled I am at what seems to be a fairly common, "Oh well, you'll have this, it's not that big a deal." attitude.
To me, it's inconceivable that someone has one shred of integrity if they cannot keep a promise to the one person in the world who means more to them than anything.
I hear the old, "Well, he's good at what he does, and this little incident doesn't really have anything to do with it." saw, and it just blows my mind. If that person will stomp on that basic trust, he'll screw anyone, literally or figuratively, IMNSHO, and I will on no level trust that person.......with anything.
I'm sure some of y'all won't see it that way, but that's just how some differences seem to shake down.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2010 11:35:08 AM · #3929 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no
sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the
rules of football. |
...and therein lies the problem Doc. In football, all of the participant know and adhere to a prescribed set of rules that everyone understands and tacitly agrees to. Such is not the case in life, at least not on a universal plane. Yes there are some rules that most societies agree to, but even in instances where we address the issue of "Termination of life"...it can arise, depending on circumstances, that it is NOT ALWAYS called murder, nor is the activity deemed illegal.
Everything is perspective. To this end I am reminded of the following quote, which might give us a glance as to just how it is that we view things somewhat differently:
There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. ÂdThese ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the Summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both.
[1921 W. B. Masterson in Morning Telegraph (NY) 27 Oct. 7]
Have a wonderful day :O)
Ray |
I hope I don't give the impression that I think things are exactly the same everywhere; a wal-mart in every town, and the same understanding of murder. I'm arguing though that there is enough commonality to be able to have discussions and hopeful resolution of a moral disagreement. Let me ask you which of the Standford statements you identify more with. I'll quote them again because I think they distill the differences between the two camps:
Objectivists maintain that, typically, at least one party in a moral disagreement accepts the moral judgment on account of some factual or logical mistake, and that revealing such mistakes would be sufficient to rationally resolve the disagreement.
The characteristic relativist contention is that a common moral framework is often lacking, especially in moral disagreements between one society and another, and that differences in moral frameworks usually cannot be explained simply by supposing that one society or the other is making factual or logical mistakes. These moral disagreements are ultimately rooted in fundamentally different moral orientations, and there is usually no reason to think these differences result from the fact that, in relevant respects, one side is less reasonable or well-informed than the other. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 11:44:34 AM · #3930 |
| Really, I have made an effort to understand this discussion, but to me it is a lot like the adults sounds in Charlie Brown cartoons... |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 12:16:56 PM · #3931 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Really, I have made an effort to understand this discussion, but to me it is a lot like the adults sounds in Charlie Brown cartoons... |
The nutshell version is: some people think that morality is unchanging and generally originates outside humanity; some think that morality changes with the times, societies, and even individuals; and some people think that perennially quoting CS Lewis will make all the discourse in the world about such matters go away. ;-) |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 12:29:38 PM · #3932 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Really, I have made an effort to understand this discussion, but to me it is a lot like the adults sounds in Charlie Brown cartoons... |
The nutshell version is: some people think that morality is unchanging and generally originates outside humanity; some think that morality changes with the times, societies, and even individuals; and some people think that perennially quoting CS Lewis will make all the discourse in the world about such matters go away. ;-) |
LOL. Things have been so much more civil in the last 36 hours. That was funny.
I've been trying to staple Lewis' work into the back of my bible, but it keeps falling off. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 01:12:42 PM · #3933 |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 01:38:54 PM · #3934 |
| While a morals discussion would be feasible between those raised in Judeo-Christian countries, I am not so sure it would be as easy with people from Asia, the Middle East, or perhaps parts of Africa. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 01:44:39 PM · #3935 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
While a morals discussion would be feasible between those raised in Judeo-Christian countries, I am not so sure it would be as easy with people from Asia, the Middle East, or perhaps parts of Africa. |
Unless you're a moral objectivist. |
|
|
|
01/08/2010 01:54:37 PM · #3936 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the
man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does
not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of
behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man
very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." |
I realize I didn't say exactly what I meant in my previous post. I was referring to the above statements, and while there could always be a discussion between any two people, I do not think they will both always have the same expectations for standards of behavior. |
|
|
|
01/10/2010 11:09:05 PM · #3937 |
I wonder what the outcome of This Federal Court Casewill be.
The approach taken by the various participants is if nothing else... different.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 04:28:26 PM · #3938 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The approach taken by the various participants is if nothing else... different. |
Originally posted by from the article:
In an unusual move, the proceedings will be uploaded at regular intervals on YouTube, the judge ruled last week. |
Very interesting. No more need for court TV, just put it on YouTube. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 04:57:18 PM · #3939 |
| The SCOTUS has (at least temporarily) blocked the uploading of the videos of the proceedings. |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 08:33:00 AM · #3940 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The approach taken by the various participants is if nothing else... different. |
Originally posted by from the article:
In an unusual move, the proceedings will be uploaded at regular intervals on YouTube, the judge ruled last week. |
Very interesting. No more need for court TV, just put it on YouTube. |
I guess that was something of interest, but my focus was mainly on the legal approach taken by the parties involved.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 12:39:03 PM · #3941 |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 07:59:21 AM · #3942 |
OK, this thread has been going on for several years and I did read a great part of it, though not all 153 pages and though it seems it has taken a few side paths, the main issue still stands: will being gay be excepted and considered the same as being straight, or not.
As English is not my native language, you'll have to forgive my sometimes rather poor way of expressing myself.
Several times I've read the expression that being gay was a choice of living, just like someone has a choice in what religion suites him/her best (if any). Pity that a lot of people still think that 'being gay' or 'being straight' has to do with making a choice. In my opinion one has not a choice, one is either gay, or straight or even both. Choosing to live in a way in order to keep a community 'satisfied', is denying oneself and not fair to whomever you choose to live with in that way. Most of the time those commitments won't hold.
Fourty years ago I married my Dutch husband in the States at the justice of the piece.
What always has striked me as odd, is the fact that in America (Canada too?) a church wedding only was sufficient to obtain legal civil rights, while State and Religion are separated things (are they not?)
In my country (The Netherlands) only the civil marriage counts in order to obtain legal rights and one surely can have a church wedding, but that's a surplus choice. As it should be in my opinion.
We have two daughters, one straight, on gay (which I knew even before she did), both have partners and actually I can't see any difference between both relationships. As for the way of enjoyment they both get out of their intimacy (if that's the right word), I don't think it's my place to question or judge that. Were you ever asked by somebody how yóu 'do it'? I've never been asked that question, so why should it all of a sudden be a problem how gay people 'do it'. Show me a straight couple who haven't ever experienced in that field and I'll tell them they've missed out on some exciting pleasure.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 08:04:34 AM · #3943 |
Originally posted by Titia:
Fourty years ago I married my Dutch husband in the States at the justice of the piece.
What always has striked me as odd, is the fact that in America (Canada too?) a church wedding only was sufficient to obtain legal civil rights, while State and Religion are separated things (are they not?)
In my country (The Netherlands) only the civil marriage counts in order to obtain legal rights and one surely can have a church wedding, but that's a surplus choice. As it should be in my opinion. |
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Ireland you sign the register at the end of the church ceremony. The signing of the register constitutes the civil/legal part of the marriage.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 08:37:51 AM · #3944 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Titia:
Fourty years ago I married my Dutch husband in the States at the justice of the piece.
What always has striked me as odd, is the fact that in America (Canada too?) a church wedding only was sufficient to obtain legal civil rights, while State and Religion are separated things (are they not?)
In my country (The Netherlands) only the civil marriage counts in order to obtain legal rights and one surely can have a church wedding, but that's a surplus choice. As it should be in my opinion. |
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Ireland you sign the register at the end of the church ceremony. The signing of the register constitutes the civil/legal part of the marriage. |
I will assume that you are referring to same sex marriages only. A quick google check provided Thiswhich deals explicitly with same sex marriages.
Please advise if this is indeed still the case.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 08:49:10 AM · #3945 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Titia:
Fourty years ago I married my Dutch husband in the States at the justice of the piece.
What always has striked me as odd, is the fact that in America (Canada too?) a church wedding only was sufficient to obtain legal civil rights, while State and Religion are separated things (are they not?)
In my country (The Netherlands) only the civil marriage counts in order to obtain legal rights and one surely can have a church wedding, but that's a surplus choice. As it should be in my opinion. |
I don't know how it works in the US, but here in Ireland you sign the register at the end of the church ceremony. The signing of the register constitutes the civil/legal part of the marriage. |
I will assume that you are referring to same sex marriages only. A quick google check provided Thiswhich deals explicitly with same sex marriages.
Please advise if this is indeed still the case. |
That is still the case.
I was referring to marriages between a woman and a man. You can get married in a church, in which case the civil partnership is at the end of the ceremony when you sign the register. Or, you can get married in a registry office, which just involves a few words spoken by the official, and then the signing of the register.
Neither scenario applies to same-sex marriages as they are not yet recognised here.
ETA: Bearing in mind, it was only decriminalised here in 1993!!
Message edited by author 2010-01-15 08:59:23. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 11:15:33 AM · #3946 |
Originally posted by Titia:
What always has striked me as odd, is the fact that in America (Canada too?) a church wedding only was sufficient to obtain legal civil rights... |
That's not true in Canada, and I don't think it's true for the US. You can be married legally outside of a church -- for example, in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace. My parents were married that way when they came to Canada in the fifties. The funny thing is, they did so for religious reasons. He was Catholic, she was Protestant, and the church was getting its knickers in a right twist over that. So they blew them off entirely.
Message edited by author 2010-01-15 11:16:45. |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 03:00:17 PM · #3947 |
Originally posted by Titia:
What always has striked me as odd, is the fact that in America (Canada too?) a church wedding only was sufficient to obtain legal civil rights... |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's not true in Canada, and I don't think it's true for the US. You can be married legally outside of a church -- for example, in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace. My parents were married that way when they came to Canada in the fifties. The funny thing is, they did so for religious reasons. He was Catholic, she was Protestant, and the church was getting its knickers in a right twist over that. So they blew them off entirely. |
In Pennsylvania, you can pretty much get married anywhere you want, but it has to be someone who can legally marry you, i.e., some form of ordained minister, or a magistrate. Wherever you marry, you must first obtain a marriage license from the state.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 03:31:17 PM · #3948 |
In the Netherlands each marriage, wether it be man/woman or same sex, has to be performed by an officially appointed public servant. It used to be in a Cityhall only, but nowadays one has a free choice of place. The couple have to give notice to an intended marriage at least three weeks before the actual marriage takes place. Next to that one can choose a church marriage too and often enough when there is a mixed religion between the two partners, both minister and priest perform the service together. Even our heir to the throne married that way. So, if one wants to have a church wedding, one has to have a civil wedding too. That counts for the whole country.
If a couple (different or same sex) doesn't want to get married officially, they can choose to sign a partnership contract at a notary office, in order to get legal rights, which is obligitory when, for instance, they want to buy a house together.
My hubby and I got married by the justice of the peace in Rockville MD, USA in Oct. 1969, because it happened we were both staying in the States and later in Canada for a while at that time.
Our eldest daughter and her partner got married two years ago, only because they were moving to Dubai and living together without being married would have caused them problems overthere. Our youngest daughter has choosen not to get married at all, but signing a partner contract.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2010 03:39:38 PM · #3949 |
Originally posted by Titia:
If a couple (different or same sex) doesn't want to get married officially, they can choose to sign a partnership contract at a notary office, in order to get legal rights, which is obligitory when, for instance, they want to buy a house together.
|
Legally speaking, what is the difference between an official marriage and a "partnership contract"? |
|
|
|
01/15/2010 04:00:13 PM · #3950 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Titia:
If a couple (different or same sex) doesn't want to get married officially, they can choose to sign a partnership contract at a notary office, in order to get legal rights, which is obligitory when, for instance, they want to buy a house together.
|
Legally speaking, what is the difference between an official marriage and a "partnership contract"? |
If you're asking about The Netherlands, I don't know ...
In the USA (where most of this discussion has been focused), there are specific legal rights regarding taxes, inheritance, child custody, medical decision-making, etc., which are conferred by state-sanctioned marriage and are not by domestic partnership agreements -- I think we've been over this several times in this thread. One glaring difference is the ability (or lack thereof) to file a joint tax return ... |
|
