USA elections

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Ok, Tone, let me simplify this-

Two people want to get married. One group gets the right because one of is composed of a man and a woman. The other does not because they are of the same sex. One group gets its rights, the other does not.

This is fair?

Everybody has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. This right is denied to no one.

And the notion that homosexuality is a choice is highly debated and often dismissed. From what I have seen of the lives of the homosexuals I know, I doubt they would have freely chosen to be members of a minority class.

If we are able to say that some homosexuals are gay because of genetics, that discriminating them because of their genetically predisposed desires is unfair.

If we are able to say they are chosing their lifestyle, then we are affording them a special status based on something that is deviant.

ALternatively, we can do what you suggest. Gay people do marry people of the other gender for a variety of reasons, and often the marriage ends badly when one or the other realizes that "oh well, guess I like my own kind better."

Then they shouldn't get married. There are lots of people who never get married. Whether or not they're gay, I don't know, but I know some who I would most definitely say aren't gay. Marriage by itself is not an entitlement. If you don't meet the right person you don't-then you don't get married. If the right person is of the same gender and you persue that, that's your choice, but don't force me to recognize it as marriage. It's not, and 11 states recently backed me on that.

So the only way you would allow gays to marry is if that was a fraud? That's a solution to this?

Come on Tone, what pisses you off is that you see a sacrament being jeopardized by a bunch of queers.

Or is it that you don't want others, or don't believe others can share the same kind of relationship you have with your wife just because the person has a different sexual preference?

Because I believe marriage is ordained of God to be between a man and a woman. Sure, scoff at my religious beliefs, because I know it will happen but remember, the majority voted with me. Does this make me right, no, not by itself, but I have a right to vote how I feel...and I did.

But so many marriages don't work and we allow them. What about a marriage between two people who love and are committed to each other? Do you want to deny them their relationship because of the type of sexual organs they were born with?

Marriage is not the prerequisite for a relationship...I don't see where you guys are picking this up from. I'm not denying them a relationship, they can have that, I just won't recognize it as marriage.

ANd this notion that civil rights is about the things you can't choose is not right. People have civil rights in the way they want to raise their family, the religions they get to practice, the things they get to think, the secrets they keep, usually their thoughts and their speech and the people they form associations with. PEople have civil rights in their source of political ideas, in their willingness to protest or not protest, their right to vote or not vote.

The right to practice religion is guaranteed by the constitution, why I mentioned it. Civil rights on how they want to raise their families? How does this apply here? One minute your talking specifically about "civil rights" and how they protect the minority, now your talking about "unalienable rights". Sure there is a connection but you're diluting your definition of civil rights.

Civil rights is based on that fundamental principle of democracy- the rights of individual to choose, and protecting those rights.

That's why the gay marriage amendment is being sponsored. Under the constitution there is a risk that the laws against gay marriage will be tossed out. The amendment would therefore restrict the rights of individuals one of the most fundamental rights under substantive due process- the right to choose who you wish to have a partnership with.

An amendment against gay marriage denies no one rights. The right of an individual to marry a person of the opposite gender is, as it has been, still extended to all.

Do I understand where Tone is coming from- yes. There needs to be a line drawn and it has to be clear. IT is always that way when it comes down to civil rights in this country. A murky line opens up more litigation and legal contest, where a clear line ideally defines the boundaries between the rights of the individual and the need of society to impose a social order of its' choosing.

Do I agree with Tone? No. But I understand what he is saying. Let's call my response to some critics that have been saying I am too harsh on the religious conservatives (like Lauren and Sander).

I am not unsympathetic for his desire for a line of standards to be drawn. But I am unsympathic to where he, and other religious conservatives, wish to draw that line. He is being more conservative, I am being more liberal.

We have a gay marriage thread elsewhere here. Go back and look at it before you try to tear me to pieces. This has been an thoughtful discussion thus far. Don't turn it into a chain of personal attacks and ruin it.

I'd love to go back and peruse other threads, but keeping up with you and Ashmo is keeping me quite busy. When do I get to call in reinforcements :

Anyway, I'll keep giving it some effort...probably tomorrow though.

 

[Ashmo]

Ashmo- you wrote

"Morality is also a reason, but that morality is based on the instinct which tells us it's wrong (which is an instinct we have in order to protect the gene pool, simple as that)."

Sorry but if that's not suggestive of Gestalt, I don't know what it is. An instinctive reasoning that something is good or bad? Come on.

Stop saying "Gestalt". "Gestalt" means shape and I have no idea what you are referring to because of that.

I think I was a wee bit out of my mind because upon reading that statement again I realise that what I said there doesn't reflect what I think.

I'm not going to try to make sense out of that mess I produced there, because I think I would have canned it had I proofread the post again before submitting it.

As for telling me to shut up- my suggestion would be to think before you speak. Whether my reasoning is short-sighted, no doubt. But I think teaching Constitutional Law kind of informs my thoughts on this.

I told you to shut up because you insisted that I claimed morality was fully determined by our genetics, which is incompatible with what I said in the Choice & Conequence thread in the FO3 forum and doesn't entirely match what I claimed here either.

My claim (which, as I said, I'm hereby pointing out as random blurb) was that morality is PARTIALLY influenced by instincts. A more sober answer is what I wrote in said other thread, which is that there is a difference between what personal beliefs and morality within the society.

Now as for your other ideas- you are pulling both your criticisms of me, your protrayal of me, and your ideas out of your ass. Sorry. I know you mean well, but much of what you are espousing is nonsense. Sorry but your post seems to be mostly either taking a position that is either defensive of your points or offensive against me, and that's clouding your judgement.

Actually I was attacking you because I made the mistake and tried to reply after reading ALL new posts. I kinda mixed your and Tone's positions up there and thought you were sharing his opinions.
Sorry about that, but that happens when your in a hurry and don't reply to the post after reading it completely.

Sorry, I don't mean to hurt your feelings. But you're thinking is half wishful, half fuzzy and assumes much with little proof. If what Jebus said hurts your feelings, that's too bad. But don't make this into a personal attack.

You assume I am against you. But you assume wrong. One can understand the other's side, it's logic, and still see its flaws.

Jebus hurting my feelings? Nah. I don't take much offense from online discussions although some people tend to piss me off.

I didn't assume anything about you, I just mixed your oppinion up with someone else's

I think I somehow merged views because I didn't take much notice of names and opinions (I prefer not to carry over aggression raised in discussions to other topics usually) and then thought you were someone else without double-checking.

Is environmental protection found more in richer countries than in poorer ones? OF course. Why? Because environmental protections cost money and are a luxury that poor countries can't afford. Consider the environmental damage done in Russia, China, or how developed states dump their waste in undeveloped states.

OTOH Russia signed the Kyoto protocol and the US did not.
I agree that environmental protection is something poor countries can't afford due to the competition by stronger countries, but that's a problem of international politics (countries don't profit from EP and therefore it is (seen from a management perspective) an unneccessary investment), but it's not as if the richer countries neccessarily evangelise EP. EP is not ONLY a money issue.

I attacked you there because I understood you as an EP critic. Maybe I misread your tone a bit.

As for your support of animal rights- while it is undoubtably true that animals are supposed to be treated better today, and they should be killed in a humane way, that principle didn't exist 40 or 50 years ago. Animals got those protections because people felt bad for the animals, in part because of changing social standards about cruelty to animals, not whether animals have inherent rights.

Of course, but the people who felt bad for the animals mostly were non-speciecists and gained support by pointing out how bad they are treated. If you are not aware of the fact that other species' have as much feeling and conciousness as you have you can't see them as being maltreated. That's at least what educational campaigns in poorer regions showed.

Children don't see anything wrong in maltreating an animal unless they understand that the animal has feelings too.

And we haven't changed that much when it comes to our moral values. After all Nazis loved their dogs even as they sent jews the gas chamber.

They loved their dogs, but that doesn't change that they mostly thought of them as their property and inferior creatures.
Jews on the other hand were perceived as varmint, as a threat to the purity of the gene-pool (in other words back then of course -- blood and honor and all that).
The comparison would be more that between Jews and rats, which we know today is wrong because Jews are humans whereas rats are rats -- that still doesn't change the fact that rats are concious beings tho.

But I would go so far as to say that rights are never "inherent" but must always be fought for.

Inherence of rights is a weird concept if you think about it anyway. Nobody has any rights by inherence. Rights are granted by the state because outside a society there are no rights.
When there are no humans around you you don't have any rights because there is no need for them. You do not interact with anyone so there need not be any rules for interaction.

Maybe it's because Germany has long been ruled without direct religious influence, but to me the term "God-given right" is awkward. If God exists it is an observer, not a ruler, but that's my opinion and I don't even believe in a deity.

I think that in a legislative state every concious being should be legally protected against suffering without consent. Of course animals and immature children (etc) should form an exception (otherwise you couldn't have a child undergo life-saving surgery without its consent or could hardly perform any medical action on an animal), but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to maltreat them intentionally.

But this thread isn't about rewriting law anyway.

But that goes to my notion that the faith based idea of "natural rights" is bullshit. The rights of citizens were won in power contests, not granted from uphigh.

(Ok, you will say that's not very catholic of me. Yeah. But I don't wear my faith on my sleeve and I am willing to believe that the Church, and our understanding of God, is warped by our human failings).

I think equality in law, which is a logical concept and not a faith-based one, is a fundamental concept that should be omnipresent in the legislative.
Of course equality is not a natural right because, just as you say, there are no natural rights. It's a logical right tho and so are many "natural" rights.

But people's values change. We don't want animals to be hurt so we give them protections. They don't "have them" inherently. We created laws that prevent people from being cruel, and we could easily change that. But social standards do change, the trick of the law is to stay up with those changing standards.

Yeah, but animals aren't objects. While we cannot totally abandon speciecism as that would lead to unfavorable conclusions (heck, the most democratic thing would be to nuke the planet, that way noone would have to suffer ever again and the food chain would cease to exist), we can at least treat animals with the most respect possible and care for them.

That's the same with gay marriages. People are much more tolerant of gay rights now than they were 50 years ago. Perhaps we are evolving as a species. I hope so. But I don't see the amendment to ban gay marriages as a step in the right direction, but an appeal to religious traditionalism which should not be part of a liberal democracy.

Hm... in ancient Greece they were fairly liberal. Cultures don't develop in a linear fashion.

However we can hope that our culture will become more liberal without falling apart. Right now I only see radicalisation.


In conclusion I can only say that I am sorry I fell for the flamebait and even more sorry that I accidentally comitted colatteral damage.
I tend to get a bit heated up when I run into such discussions late at night.

That lack of self-control is also the reason I prefer writing essays, but I usually don't find a reason to write about something until I run into a discussion about it.

Eh. Sorry.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Since it is me against the world here...if you want me to reply to something you may want to bold it, or start it off with something like "Tone:".

Otherwise I'm going to skim. I'll try to catch it but no promises unless you do as above...I'm probably signing off for the night.

 

[The Commissar]

OTOH Russia signed the Kyoto protocol and the US did not.

Thats sort of missing the point there. Russia has no intention of actually enforcing them. Indeed, the only reason Putin got it passed was to divert attention from his other legislation hes pushing through the Duma and gain him some extra points with the international community. So which is better? A country that doesn't pass them or a country that does pass them but with no intention of actually enforcing them?

 

[Ashmo]

OTOH Russia signed the Kyoto protocol and the US did not.

Thats sort of missing the point there. Russia has no intention of actually enforcing them. Indeed, the only reason Putin got it passed was to divert attention from his other legislation hes pushing through the Duma and gain him some extra points with the international community. So which is better? A country that doesn't pass them or a country that does pass them but with no intention of actually enforcing them?

Well, since it required either country's voice before the protocol could actually get enforced I'm quite happy with Russia's signature

 

[calculon000]

I think this may be a debate between people who see marriage in the United States as a Christian Institution of the church, and those who see it as a legal institution of the government. Which is it people? because according to the constitution, both cases cannot be true.

An amendment against gay marriage denies no one rights. The right of an individual to marry a person of the opposite gender is, as it has been, still extended to all.

That is a justification that you seem to repeat again and again, and let me tell you why it is false:
The amendment denies everyone the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just because you are maintaining an existing right doesn’t mean there aren’t other rights being denied here.

What is your logic behind "If you disallow something that was not specifically disallowed before, everyone is still allowed to everything they did before"?

 

[Ashmo]

I think this may be a debate between people who see marriage in the United States as a Christian Institution of the church, and those who see it as a legal institution of the government. Which is it people? because according to the constitution, both cases cannot be true.

Apparently your constitution is way fucked up (no news, eh?) then.
Legal marriage is a registered long-term partnership granting the couple certain legal and financial benefits. Religious marriage is a bonding ritual (simplified, but that's pretty much what it is in most religions I am aware of).

Christian marriage for example cannot really be revoked (unless the Pope changed his mind on that issue, which I doubt) -- although liberal priests don't take that problem too serious -- whereas legal marriage is non-permanent.

An amendment against gay marriage denies no one rights. The right of an individual to marry a person of the opposite gender is, as it has been, still extended to all.

That is a justification that you seem to repeat again and again, and let me tell you why it is false:
The amendment denies everyone the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just because you are maintaining an existing right doesn’t mean there aren’t other rights being denied here.

What is your logic behind "If you disallow something that was not specifically disallowed before, everyone is still allowed to everything they did before"?

It's just that and he thinks the logical conclusion is that preventing improvement of legal equality isn't discriminating. Of course that is flawed thinking. Hey, but maybe I have weird surreal logic because I come from a programming background.

Either he really isn't aware of (or able to recognize) the flaw in his logic or he just uses it as an excuse because he wants to have at least *some* kind of evidence that his point is valid and logical.

 

[calculon000]

Apparently your constitution is way fucked up (no news, eh?) then.
Legal marriage is a registered long-term partnership granting the couple certain legal and financial benefits. Religious marriage is a bonding ritual (simplified, but that's pretty much what it is in most religions I am aware of).

Christian marriage for example cannot really be revoked (unless the Pope changed his mind on that issue, which I doubt) -- although liberal priests don't take that problem too serious -- whereas legal marriage is non-permanent.

I was just getting at the separation of church and state. So it's a religious-based institution. I just wasn't sure if it was more legal than religious nowadays.

 

[Ashmo]

What I was trying to point out that there are two seperate institutions. You can marry someone religiously, but that alone doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law unless you go through the legal process.

You can get married by law without any religious ceremony. In Germany the two words are "standesamtlich" (marrying by law) and "kirchlich" (marrying by church).
My parents were married by law for years before they decided to get married by church.

In a country in which church and state are seperated religious marriage CANNOT equal legal marriage. The concept of marriage is of course a somewhat religious one, but that doesn't make legal marriage religious.

Restricting legal marriage IS contraproductive, it is against the seperation of church and state because the idea that marriage can only happen between man and woman is a concept of a certain number of religions.
There may be and most likely are religions which do not restrict marriage to opposite sexes and there are even religions which allow marriage between children.
The reason this doesn't matter is that marriage as a legal process is a decision of two concious adults with consent of both. There is no non-religious reason not to allow intra-sex marriage and especially in a country in which it is as easy to create a new religion as in the US it should be obvious that religious arguments CAN NOT be used to justify discrimination.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

In a country in which church and state are seperated religious marriage CANNOT equal legal marriage. The concept of marriage is of course a somewhat religious one, but that doesn't make legal marriage religious.

Ashmo, I hate to argue with you because I happen to agree with you, but where, out of every nation that has an expressed separation between church and state, is that distinction not made? Because there's not one that I can think of off the top of my head.

Second, I have never heard a good reason for preventing homosexual marriage that does not have religious or moral motivations. I understand preventing incestuous marriage (because inbred children are far more likely to have birth defects), bestiality (because you can't extend human rights to animals unless they are willing to follow the laws, rules, and procedures of their host society), and underage marriage (because the minor may not fully understand the concept of marriage). But there is nothing in my mind that would prevent two adults from being married, even if they're marrying a member of the same sex. While some may see it as immoral, the truth is, the government should not legislate morality. A government exists (in theory) to protect the people, not just to tell them what they can and can't do. And anyone who uses the laws of their nation to dictate their own moral code upon someone else ultimately does themselves a disservice..

 

[Sander]

the government should not legislate morality.

Bah. What do you think laws are? The idea that murder, rape, incestuos marriage, drunk driving, owning a gun without a license etc. should be illegal all stems from the idea that it is immoral. Legislation always deals with morality, and just because you think this morality is so logical, doesn't mean it isn't still morality. Someone could now come in with the response that it's the governments job to protect the society and legislates based on that, but again that is morality, there have been governments that look after only themselves, or only a certain part of society. In fact, a lot of governments still do. You kid yourself if you think the government isn't legislating morality and shouldn't be doing it.

And there's one more thing I'd like to touch on now: why do you believe that incestuous marriage should be illegal? The answer will most likely be that their children would be more likely to have birth defects.
So, are you now going to forbid mongoloids from marrying? Not even having children, but just marrying? And would you forbid someone who is blind due to a genetically inheritable disease to marry?
I certainly wouldn't. The fact remains that the illegalisation of incestuous marriage is a purely arbitrary one, where the idea that children with birth defects are more likely to be born is used as an excuse to legislate the idea that "Bah, I wouldn't want to touch my sister, why should he?" is a good one. It's in the same line as the illegalisation of homosexual marriage with the difference that it is more easily justified and more accepted.

 

[Ashmo]

In a country in which church and state are seperated religious marriage CANNOT equal legal marriage. The concept of marriage is of course a somewhat religious one, but that doesn't make legal marriage religious.

Ashmo, I hate to argue with you because I happen to agree with you, but where, out of every nation that has an expressed separation between church and state, is that distinction not made? Because there's not one that I can think of off the top of my head.

USA? Apparently. At least that is the impression Tone was trying to give.

Second, I have never heard a good reason for preventing homosexual marriage that does not have religious or moral motivations.

Me neither, that's the point.

I understand preventing incestuous marriage (because inbred children are far more likely to have birth defects), bestiality (because you can't extend human rights to animals unless they are willing to follow the laws, rules, and procedures of their host society), and underage marriage (because the minor may not fully understand the concept of marriage).

Underage marriage is illegal because legally the child is not able to express their consent or sign a contract (pretty much for the reason you expressed).
Bestiality is illegal for the same reason: animals cannot express their consent. When it comes to such issues (decision making that is) animals, apart from being a different species, should be treated in a similar way by the law as children are.
Both, animals and children, need to be parented and protected. The difference is that for animals there need be exceptions regarding death and other issues that only become apparent in practice -- the key is to treat utility animals in a way that is as humane as possible and if you have to kill them you should kill them without letting them suffer.

One aspect of civilisation is that foreign races, children and animals are recognised as concious beings with feelings and emotions (and, of course, that all humans regardless are recognised as human beings on top of that).

But there is nothing in my mind that would prevent two adults from being married, even if they're marrying a member of the same sex. While some may see it as immoral, the truth is, the government should not legislate morality. A government exists (in theory) to protect the people, not just to tell them what they can and can't do. And anyone who uses the laws of their nation to dictate their own moral code upon someone else ultimately does themselves a disservice.

Morality and legality are different issues by nature. The court does not do justice, the court enforces the law. I think we both agree there.
However laws should be based upon justice and justice means equality. I do not mean simple, moral justice though, I mean justice born out of logic, complex justice.

Some issues are very difficult to fully discuss with purely logical arguments, like death penalty or civilian ownership of firearms, but even the longest logic-based discussion is better than a quick decision based on religiously influenced subjective morality.

 

[Sander]

IN your last paragraphs you start to go off and claim that justice should be based "out of logic", and that it shouldn't be "simple, moral justice". Feh, this is absolutely impossible. Any form of justice is based on morality, some are based on the morality of equality, some are based on the morality of trying to do the "best thing for society" (if that's your morality, by the way, Hitler was perfectly justifiable, although his premisses were false as hell, from his premisses, his actions were logical), some morality is based on the idea that every person has certain basic rights. You can argue and reason all you want, I tell you right now you can never ever conclusively prove that this morality is good and solid. It's literally impossible.
And thus, as you can see, our governments and our laws are based, sometimes indirectly, on morality, and not on "logic" or "facts". So please, stop basing your posts on these things, because they are blatantly false.

Also, this:

Both, animals and children, need to be parented and protected. The difference is that for animals there need be exceptions regarding death and other issues that only become apparent in practice -- the key is to treat utility animals in a way that is as humane as possible and if you have to kill them you should kill them without letting them suffer.

is bullshit. As welsh has said, if we really cared about animals, we would all become vegetarians. It's just a bunch of legislation to make us feel good about ourselves because we hate to see kittens killed, but no-one gives a flying fuck if you swat a bunch of flies just because they're flying.

 

[Ashmo]

IN your last paragraphs you start to go off and claim that justice should be based "out of logic", and that it shouldn't be "simple, moral justice". Feh, this is absolutely impossible. Any form of justice is based on morality, some are based on the morality of equality, some are based on the morality of trying to do the "best thing for society" (if that's your morality, by the way, Hitler was perfectly justifiable, although his premisses were false as hell, from his premisses, his actions were logical), some morality is based on the idea that every person has certain basic rights. You can argue and reason all you want, I tell you right now you can never ever conclusively prove that this morality is good and solid. It's literally impossible.

Morality and logic oftenly cross each other, but that doesn't mean they always lead to the same result. Revenge can be moral justice or not, depending on the definition of morality (which is very relative).
The foundation of every liberal democracy are equality and freedom. The laws resulting from that are logical consequences of these foundational principles. A logical conclusion of freedom is that if every person is free the freedom of the individual is limited to everything that doesn't interfere with other people's freedoms.
Laws are meant to protect mankind from itself by solving the problems that result from human interaction in a scoiety.
Of course there are other foundations for other systems which result in different laws and freedoms.

And thus, as you can see, our governments and our laws are based, sometimes indirectly, on morality, and not on "logic" or "facts". So please, stop basing your posts on these things, because they are blatantly false.

Morality is and always has been a concept on which systems were based, but saying logic has nothing to do with law is an obviously flawed statement.

Also, this:

Both, animals and children, need to be parented and protected. The difference is that for animals there need be exceptions regarding death and other issues that only become apparent in practice -- the key is to treat utility animals in a way that is as humane as possible and if you have to kill them you should kill them without letting them suffer.

is bullshit. As welsh has said, if we really cared about animals, we would all become vegetarians. It's just a bunch of legislation to make us feel good about ourselves because we hate to see kittens killed, but no-one gives a flying fuck if you swat a bunch of flies just because they're flying.

CHRIST. Does everyone have to become a radical extremist these days? Have you ever heard of a thing called "compromise"?
As I said before ultimately speciecism cannot be revoked as that would not lead anywhere favorable.

Of course the majority of people is ignorant and uneducated when it comes to speciecism, but the reason why we don't like to see monkeys, kittens or walrusses killed is that we are (at least to some degree) aware that they are concious beings. We favor mammals over insects, fish and other families is that WE are mammals and therefore somewhat closer to them than we are to the rest. They are more like us than a shark or worm.

If you've ever seen sci-fi movies you'll have noticed that "good" or "civilised" aliens are generally more humanoid and mammal-like while "evil" or "hostile" aliens usually share more similarities with squids or insects. The reason is that non-mammals are more foreign and "alien" to us and we have less feelings for them.

Claiming animal rights are born out of some obscure God-given morality is speciecistic rambling.

Ultimately we might end up as vegetarians and coexist with other animals in some way or another but even if that would be the most favorable outcome we are way far away from such a world.

The farther civilisation comes and the less we have to worry about ourselves, the more we begin to think about our environment and other species'. That is why issues like environmental protection and animal rights usually occure with increased common wealth.

 

[Radial]

Stop saying "Gestalt". "Gestalt" means shape and I have no idea what you are referring to because of that.

In English, Gestalt means "A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts. (dictionary.com)" I have no idea how that translation occurred, though.

There's a lot of words in the English language that are simply German words, but with a much more elaborate and specific definition, such as Zeitgeist.

 

[Sander]

Morality and logic oftenly cross each other, but that doesn't mean they always lead to the same result. Revenge can be moral justice or not, depending on the definition of morality (which is very relative).
The foundation of every liberal democracy are equality and freedom. The laws resulting from that are logical consequences of these foundational principles.

I wasn't arguing that, Ashmo, but that the position being taken by you that laws have nothing to do with morality with the sentence 'Morality and legality are different issues by nature.' was bullshit. So respond to that, and not something that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

A logical conclusion of freedom is that if every person is free the freedom of the individual is limited to everything that doesn't interfere with other people's freedoms.

No, a logical conclusion of freedom would be freedom, not limited freedom. It is not logical to assume the premiss of freedom and equality, and then introduce a government to stand above the people, and laws to limit freedom. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm saying that these aren't the only foundations of our societies, but that morality plays a much larger role.

Laws are meant to protect mankind from itself by solving the problems that result from human interaction in a scoiety.

Bullshit. Laws are created by the government to protect its own institutions and the "society" as they want the society to be. If the government is elected by a democratic election then the laws are created for the benefit of the majority of those who are elected, and hopefully the ones who elected, but laws were not meant to "protect manking from itself". At most they were meant to protect nations and their societies.

Morality is and always has been a concept on which systems were based, but saying logic has nothing to do with law is an obviously flawed statement.

And that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that the position that they were based solely on logic and facts was flawed, although my choice of words was, as I see, poor.

CHRIST. Does everyone have to become a radical extremist these days? Have you ever heard of a thing called "compromise"?
As I said before ultimately speciecism cannot be revoked as that would not lead anywhere favorable.

Of course the majority of people is ignorant and uneducated when it comes to speciecism, but the reason why we don't like to see monkeys, kittens or walrusses killed is that we are (at least to some degree) aware that they are concious beings. We favor mammals over insects, fish and other families is that WE are mammals and therefore somewhat closer to them than we are to the rest. They are more like us than a shark or worm.

If you've ever seen sci-fi movies you'll have noticed that "good" or "civilised" aliens are generally more humanoid and mammal-like while "evil" or "hostile" aliens usually share more similarities with squids or insects. The reason is that non-mammals are more foreign and "alien" to us and we have less feelings for them.

Hah. What bull. Most people don't think "Oh, look, that kitten is a mammal, and it's closer to us than a fly, and it may be conscious, so we must stop it from getting hurt."
No, they think "Ooh, what a cute little kitten." The reason why we have laws protecting them is morality, not logic, nor facts. It's instinct, and whether that instinct is based on something that is explicable doesn't even matter, because it remains morality.

Claiming animal rights are born out of some obscure God-given morality is speciecistic rambling.

Implying that I was saying such a thing is also rambling.
I'm not and never was saying that morality was God-given, so don't imply that I was.

Ultimately we might end up as vegetarians and coexist with other animals in some way or another but even if that would be the most favorable outcome we are way far away from such a world.

The farther civilisation comes and the less we have to worry about ourselves, the more we begin to think about our environment and other species'. That is why issues like environmental protection and animal rights usually occure with increased common wealth.

Obviously, and I've not argued against that either.

 

[Ashmo]

I wasn't arguing that, Ashmo, but that the position being taken by you that laws have nothing to do with morality with the sentence 'Morality and legality are different issues by nature.' was bullshit. So respond to that, and not something that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Morality and logic are different things. We both agree about that. The thing I was trying to say, would you have read what I said properly rather than telling me I'm talking out of my ass, was that both can be hard to distinguish when they cross each other.
Morality may strongly influence laws in systems in which the public can affect laws directly, but the legislative itself should not act upon subjective beliefs -- except for borderline cases like ethical questions (although that could be discussed at lengths).

No, a logical conclusion of freedom would be freedom, not limited freedom.

Ultimate freedom and society don't work. Freedom is restricted by the rights of the individual -- a result of freedom -- one of which is the right not to be harmed by others.
The only way to be ultimately free is to live independant and there just aren't enough remote islands for every person to follow that idea.

It is not logical to assume the premiss of freedom and equality, and then introduce a government to stand above the people, and laws to limit freedom. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm saying that these aren't the only foundations of our societies, but that morality plays a much larger role.

One can likely argue that equality and freedom are concepts born out of morality. I didn't neglect that, as far as I remember.

However I didn't say the government stands above the people either. I'm not much of a fan of faschism, but that doesn't mean anarchy is the only justifiable outcome.

Bullshit. Laws are created by the government to protect its own institutions and the "society" as they want the society to be. If the government is elected by a democratic election then the laws are created for the benefit of the majority of those who are elected, and hopefully the ones who elected, but laws were not meant to "protect mankind from itself". At most they were meant to protect nations and their societies.

You must be incredibly obsessed with bovine feces because you sure mention it a lot. Good thing I don't take much offense from it.

All systems that exist to date are corrupt to one degree or another. Of course a representative democracy suffers from that problem and the representants that make up the government tend to modify laws in a way that they profit from them.

Laws regulate social interaction within the boundaries of the affected society and ensure that if something goes wrong there there are rules on how to deal with the issue.
National laws protect the nation's people from itself. International laws protect nations from each other. Of course I was generalising there -- national laws can only affect the nation and not ALL humans (well, let's not go there), but I assumed that was pretty obvious.
Criminals are not hostile foreigners but part of the society. Therefore the society, when being protected against criminals, protects the society from itself, just as the international society protects its nations from each other.
OF COURSE the majority of people benefit from protective laws.

Morality is and always has been a concept on which systems were based, but saying logic has nothing to do with law is an obviously flawed statement.

And that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that the position that they were based solely on logic and facts was flawed, although my choice of words was, as I see, poor.

Maybe my choice of words was poor as well (but hey, we're to people arguing in a foreign language afterall) as I was not trying to claim morality had NOTHING to do with legality. Morality SHOULD not affect the legislative as the government should not base its actions on morality (lest you like seeing more religious bushfires) but on logic.

Hah. What bull. Most people don't think "Oh, look, that kitten is a mammal, and it's closer to us than a fly, and it may be conscious, so we must stop it from getting hurt."
No, they think "Ooh, what a cute little kitten." The reason why we have laws protecting them is morality, not logic, nor facts. It's instinct, and whether that instinct is based on something that is explicable doesn't even matter, because it remains morality.

Of course they don't think that. Last I checked they don't *think* "What a cute kitten" either. I was giving a logical explanation, not reciting people's thoughts.

Mothers don't *think* "What a cute baby, I want to care for it" and I'm certain most people don't suddenly think "Oh, I guess I should fall in love now" either. These are not concious thoughts, these are ... heck, I won't claim I know it for sure but I'd guess it's a mix of emotions and learnt behavior (like a new born baby will eventually identify another entity as parent and begin to bind itself to it -- which is why gooses have been successfully "trained" to accept a human as their parent, etc).

I'm sure babies don't suddenly think "Oy, I'm human" but rather identify themself with the "kind" their parent is or even identify their parent with their own "kind" or the "kind" of their brothers and sisters (if applicable).

Claiming animal rights are born out of some obscure God-given morality is speciecistic rambling.

Implying that I was saying such a thing is also rambling.
I'm not and never was saying that morality was God-given, so don't imply that I was.

Maybe I should have put the God-given part in paranthesis. You still said -- unless that is a misunderstanding on my part -- that animal rights were born out of morality. I suppose the natural reason for the seemingly inherent effect that violence against animals discomforts us is primarily caused by our adaption of the feeling that we somehow belong to a species (most likely occuring first at early age) and that the actual knowledge about genetics then adds to that bonding.
Where that bonding comes from is something I cannot discuss as I lack the scientific background for that topic, however education (and thus, wealth and quality of living, therefore reduction of personal problems) seems to be an important factor and that education is logical.

Ultimately we might end up as vegetarians and coexist with other animals in some way or another but even if that would be the most favorable outcome we are way far away from such a world.

The farther civilisation comes and the less we have to worry about ourselves, the more we begin to think about our environment and other species'. That is why issues like environmental protection and animal rights usually occure with increased common wealth.

Obviously, and I've not argued against that either.

You said that if we cared about animals we would be vegetarians. I simply explained why we aren't yet.

Heck, I'm not a vegetarian either, but mostly because it is too bothersome to compose a proper diet without meat.
If proper vegetarian diets would become more commercially interesting and widespread I would most likely switch. Sadly that is not the case and like the people a hundred years ago I just can't be arsed to care about that on top of my already existing problems in everyday life.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

It's official! I can't keep up.

I'm not going to argue my faith versus the overall lack of faith around here. I'm also not going to argue the fact that the processes of our country are moving us towards the banning of gay marriage. If you don't like it, feel free to move. The laws should not be written by activist judges.

If you don't think this was a country founded on Christian principles, please read the Declaration of Independence.

Just remember as you continue to flood the thread with posts I can't hope to keep up with; the following quote from G. Norman Collie:

"In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions and every other man is etntitled not to listen."

However, the people are speaking, and they will be heard!

 

[Sander]

Morality and logic are different things. We both agree about that. The thing I was trying to say, would you have read what I said properly rather than telling me I'm talking out of my ass, was that both can be hard to distinguish when they cross each other.
Morality may strongly influence laws in systems in which the public can affect laws directly, but the legislative itself should not act upon subjective beliefs -- except for borderline cases like ethical questions (although that could be discussed at lengths).

I have read everything, and I know what you are saying. However, you don't seem to grasp the fact that I'm arguing that every law is based on morality, not just some, and that the entire principle of our society is morality, and not logic and facts.

Ultimate freedom and society don't work. Freedom is restricted by the rights of the individual -- a result of freedom -- one of which is the right not to be harmed by others.
The only way to be ultimately free is to live independant and there just aren't enough remote islands for every person to follow that idea.

I don't diagree with the principle of laws and limiting people's freedom, but what you must understand is that this is all based on morality, not on some form of logic. People think it's morally unjustifiable to kill people, or let people just do what they want, this has jack shit to do with logically deducting from the moral principle of freedom that freedom must be limited (which is contradictory in itself), this is a purely moral decision to found a society on those principles.

One can likely argue that equality and freedom are concepts born out of morality. I didn't neglect that, as far as I remember.

One can likely argue? What? No, the concepts that equality and freedom are good are born our of morality, full stop.

However I didn't say the government stands above the people either. I'm not much of a fan of faschism, but that doesn't mean anarchy is the only justifiable outcome.

Any government stands above the people, because the word government in itself shows that you make a distinction between people in and not in government.

You must be incredibly obsessed with bovine feces because you sure mention it a lot. Good thing I don't take much offense from it.

All systems that exist to date are corrupt to one degree or another. Of course a representative democracy suffers from that problem and the representants that make up the government tend to modify laws in a way that they profit from them.

Laws regulate social interaction within the boundaries of the affected society and ensure that if something goes wrong there there are rules on how to deal with the issue.
National laws protect the nation's people from itself. International laws protect nations from each other. Of course I was generalising there -- national laws can only affect the nation and not ALL humans (well, let's not go there), but I assumed that was pretty obvious.
Criminals are not hostile foreigners but part of the society. Therefore the society, when being protected against criminals, protects the society from itself, just as the international society protects its nations from each other.
OF COURSE the majority of people benefit from protective laws.

I didn't argue against any of these things, you know. You completely skip by the point I was making, which was the point that government and laws do not exist to protect society from itself, but to protect its own interests. My elaboration on democracy was to show that even in a democracy this holds true.
The government makes laws to protect its own interests, if its interests happen to be that the people are happy, great. But governments aren't and never were created to protect the people from themselves. The point is that morality tells us that we tolerate a government because it protects us, and morality hopefully tells those in power that they must do their best to keep us happy.

Maybe my choice of words was poor as well (but hey, we're to people arguing in a foreign language afterall) as I was not trying to claim morality had NOTHING to do with legality. Morality SHOULD not affect the legislative as the government should not base its actions on morality (lest you like seeing more religious bushfires) but on logic.

And again I say that this is impossible. How can you ever create a law that isn't based on morality,whether it be directly or indirectly? It's impossible.

Of course they don't think that. Last I checked they don't *think* "What a cute kitten" either. I was giving a logical explanation, not reciting people's thoughts.

Mothers don't *think* "What a cute baby, I want to care for it" and I'm certain most people don't suddenly think "Oh, I guess I should fall in love now" either. These are not concious thoughts, these are ... heck, I won't claim I know it for sure but I'd guess it's a mix of emotions and learnt behavior (like a new born baby will eventually identify another entity as parent and begin to bind itself to it -- which is why gooses have been successfully "trained" to accept a human as their parent, etc).

I'm sure babies don't suddenly think "Oy, I'm human" but rather identify themself with the "kind" their parent is or even identify their parent with their own "kind" or the "kind" of their brothers and sisters (if applicable).

Nice elaboration, but it fails to address any points I was making. Most notably the one that this is morality, and not logic, and furthermore not carried far enough through to consider us really caring for animals.

Maybe I should have put the God-given part in paranthesis. You still said -- unless that is a misunderstanding on my part -- that animal rights were born out of morality. I suppose the natural reason for the seemingly inherent effect that violence against animals discomforts us is primarily caused by our adaption of the feeling that we somehow belong to a species (most likely occuring first at early age) and that the actual knowledge about genetics then adds to that bonding.
Where that bonding comes from is something I cannot discuss as I lack the scientific background for that topic, however education (and thus, wealth and quality of living, therefore reduction of personal problems) seems to be an important factor and that education is logical.

Hah. No. Education of biology would tell you that possibly animals could feel things, but education could also tell you that society sucks, anarchy rocks, animals are below us in the food chain and should therefore, due to the natural course of evolution and all that, be killed for food. There are many different things education and logic can tell you, and what you end up with will ultimately depend on your morality, not on your grasp of logic.

You said that if we cared about animals we would be vegetarians. I simply explained why we aren't yet.

Heck, I'm not a vegetarian either, but mostly because it is too bothersome to compose a proper diet without meat.
If proper vegetarian diets would become more commercially interesting and widespread I would most likely switch. Sadly that is not the case and like the people a hundred years ago I just can't be arsed to care about that on top of my already existing problems in everyday life.

Which shows exactly why we don't think that animals are really conscious or for that matter on any level on par with us. We only don't want to see them in pain, and take a hypocritical attitude towards meat and all things animal because we want to feel good about ourselves.

 

[welsh]

Sander- you are starting to make more sense these days.

Ashmo- No problem, it happens all the time. I think you're motives are respectable, but you need to be careful about your logic. All law is based morality, although I agree that it's a matter or logic and the question of "what is best" that often shapes that law. This is often not a rational choice and thus law develops contradictions as it reflects societies convaluted morality.

Tone- I do sympathize and I think your position seems to be that the recognition of gay marriage compromises your religious rights as to the meaning of marriage. I also agree, that somewhere the line has to be drawn. We don't allow bestiality because a person who does that is deemed a sick fuck and should either go to jail or sent to the looney bin. Ditto incest, statutory rape, etc.

As Sander is arguing above, laws are based on moral choices on how a society should be ordered and governed. So I do understand where you are coming from.

For most americans it is hard to divorce the idea of marriage away from the religious implications. The notion of marriage is based on judeo-christian values in this society (although perhaps it's history goes back even further). Therefore to allow marriage between people of like gender is morally wrong to some people and is considered deviant.

But morality changes over time. As you are entitled to your religious views, others are entitled to their moral views. This is where that seperation of church and state comes in. People can disagree about issues of faith, and that faith can shape their political choices. So we do legislate based on our faith and our values. Law is not necessarily rational in a democracy, but is a moral choice derived through political processes.

ANd in the US a lot of folks feel there has to be a line drawn on what is moral and what is not, and they say it's gay marriage.

That's democracy too- the right of the majority to choose. But it's also a matter of our democracy that people are entitled to protection of their civil rights- and that includes the right to form life partnerships that we call marriage.

You're right that marriage has a significant religious meaning. I also would not want to see you compromise on how you view your religious views.

But that said, I think you need to also realize that marriage is more than just a religious institution but also a partnership with legal consequences. For example, if you did not marry your wife and one day fell in love with a girl while oversees,she can't sue you for divorce. Get married and you have legal liability. Likewise, married folks get all sorts of rights- tax breaks, visitation, confidentiality rules, that other partenrships don't.

No one is saying for you to recognize the religious value of a gay marriage.

What is at issue is whether the government has the obligation to allow gays the same legal rights that heterosexuals get when decide to marry. By dismissing their right because of your religious convictions, you are also denying their civil legal rights.

And that's discrimination.