Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Page 24 of 27 [ 420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

20 May 2008, 7:06 pm

Ragtime wrote:
A red herring -- from what? "Red herring" have to distract from something.
But the subject of this thread is singular -- namely, addressing the question
of whether or not marriage is changing.
I said that in the opening post, that such was the only question I was asking.
To determine whether or not your car is rolling slowly or standing still,
you look out the window. This thread is only about looking out the window.


No, actually, that was the subject of the other thread. This thread's OP announces a single change in legal marriage in the state of California.

Developing "strong individual consciousness" is good (I guess, depending on what you mean), but makes for incredibly invasive public policy. It's one thing to say "adultery is wrong," and quite another to decide what ought to be done about it. I think adultery is wrong, but I don't want the government getting involved and I don't want to engage in simplistic black/white distinctions between individuals. Real life is more complicated.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

20 May 2008, 7:29 pm

Averick wrote:
It's only a matter of time before "californiacation" effects us all.
First it was Massachusetts, now them. In time, all fifty-two states
will allow gay marriage.

Sorry my fundalmentalist brethren.
We now have fifty-seven states, Averick. Barrack Obama said so. See? I can josh the guy. Anyway, only fifty of them are actually considered states. In fact, I think that at least one of those is actually considered a "commonwealth," so it's arguably less if you're keen on silly sophistry.

Now we've got our book-ends. It won't take long for the rest of the nation to follow. Hopefully, from here, the US will finally begin taking leadership on these issues again.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 May 2008, 7:31 pm

Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 May 2008, 7:40 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere.

I concur. Ambiguous rules just beg for trouble, and some things can be considered absolute.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

20 May 2008, 7:45 pm

Orwell wrote:
I concur. Ambiguous rules just beg for trouble, and some things can be considered absolute.


I'm "sickened" by the Congressmen who say "Harsher Penalties! MORE MORE MORE!" for crimes, but when their own children/relatives are accused they are before the judge pleading "It was only a mistake. Please, just let him go!"


They always change their minds when it comes to relatives.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 May 2008, 7:57 pm

oscuria wrote:
Orwell wrote:
I concur. Ambiguous rules just beg for trouble, and some things can be considered absolute.


I'm "sickened" by the Congressmen who say "Harsher Penalties! MORE MORE MORE!" for crimes, but when their own children/relatives are accused they are before the judge pleading "It was only a mistake. Please, just let him go!"


They always change their minds when it comes to relatives.

Or themselves. My Governor a few years back broke a couple bribery laws that he had personally pushed through, and then argued that he had made a mistake because he didn't understand the law. :roll: He had forced other public officials to resign for similar offenses just prior to his crimes being discovered, but then retained his own office until the end of his term.

I hate Ohio.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 May 2008, 8:00 pm

Those congressmen, whoever they, are bending the law to suit their own interests. Who'd have thunk it?

Obviously tihs is wrong.



srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

20 May 2008, 8:37 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere.


Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

20 May 2008, 8:47 pm

srriv345 wrote:
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?


I would like to see this argument.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

20 May 2008, 8:51 pm

oscuria wrote:
srriv345 wrote:
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?


I would like to see this argument.


i jerk off to porn. the morals of christianity say that's wrong but i harm no one, i am a tax-paying, productive member of society, i vote, i give money to charity, and jerking off is not a crime.


pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 May 2008, 9:49 pm

Adultery should not have to be policed by the state.

What we hope for is that people refrain from cheating on their spouses and families due to their conscience.



srriv345
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 523

20 May 2008, 9:57 pm

oscuria wrote:
srriv345 wrote:
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp?


I would like to see this argument.


I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

20 May 2008, 10:18 pm

srriv345 wrote:

I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.


Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2008, 10:22 pm

I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.

skafather84 wrote:
pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).

Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.

srriv345 wrote:
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything.

A good counter-argument to this, as even though laws may be morality, how do we really come to the right choice on laws?



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

20 May 2008, 11:08 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.

skafather84 wrote:
pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole).

Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.



a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?

b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2008, 11:45 pm

skafather84 wrote:
a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?

It could be. Egoism is a possibility for getting around the issue of morality as well, but then there is the issue of legislating for one's personal gain, but really, can you argue against an egoist?
Quote:
b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless?

Well, I am talking about the entire legal system, from the police who we send out, to the courts we use to deal with these laws, the punishments for the laws that are broken, and the actual laws that exist to be enforced.