EPTOn March 07 2012 10:52 DamnCats wrote:
Damn whitewing I just want to say that your posts on the past couple of pages have been A+.
Show nested quote +
On March 07 2012 10:46 Whitewing wrote:
There's where you're wrong: you can form an objective standard. Just because we don't currently use one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, couldn't exist or that it shouldn't exist. My objective standard is pretty simple: can the parties involved provide informed consent (a child can't, an animal can't, so there you have the major distinction), and does it hurt anyone? You might argue that any sort of objective standard is based on subjective bias, and this is true to some extent, but I don't feel that it invalidates the entire process: rather it pushes us to constantly question whether those bias are influencing our standard in a positive or negative direction, and whether we can ask ourselves what would occur if we held ourselves to different standards, based on evidence and testing.
By that logic btw, I support polygamy and polyandry as long as all parties are informed and are consenting, but I think it's probably better in that circumstance to just not get married for practical reasons: it's bloody hard to regulate the legal benefits that would go with a situation like that.
On March 07 2012 10:35 liberal wrote:
Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality.
You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans.
My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms.
On March 07 2012 10:26 ranshaked wrote:
And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same
On March 07 2012 10:18 liberal wrote:
There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical.
Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow.
On March 07 2012 10:12 bigwig123 wrote:
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think
my mind is fucking boggled by how republicans think
There are over 50 million republicans in the US. I can assure you that they don't all think in the same way, and that there are democrats who are just as illogical.
On March 07 2012 10:15 darthfoley wrote:
By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps.
On March 07 2012 09:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know.
the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions.
edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so:
no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all.
look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior.
On March 07 2012 09:32 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists.
On March 07 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way.
the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy.
Isn't this a non-sequitor? America was founded to be a secular state and that is one of our core values as a country. Regardless of whether or not it can work, it does not apply to America because America is secular.
i don't believe we were founded to be a secular state, nor was our government intended to be totally secular. many of the founders had religious conviction and spoke of those convictions often. many of them enacted policies based on those convictions. it was supposed to be secular to an extent, but in my opinion the words "separation of church and state" were not used for a reason. there was never supposed to be a total separation of church and state. we have a separation now, and we may like it that way, but i don't believe it is totally correct to imply that the founders felt the same way.
the statement was 100% in response to someone who claimed that theocratic governments do not work. that statement is absolutely incorrect. in no way was i supporting theocracy over secular government, nor was i supporting the establishment of a theocracy.
Actually yes it was. The federal government was always supposed to be totally secular. I don't really care if you don't believe that because that's what is actually true. What changed was how this shifted to state and local governments as well. Some of our founders were religious, some were not, but they were secularists.
i don't believe one can put the founder's into one homogenous group and claim that they felt anything. they were as varied then as we are now, as were many of their opinions. considering the fact that they are not here, i believe their true intentions are unknowable to a large extent. sure, many of them wrote much on their justifications, and much of their inner motivations can be known. but the fact remains that we do not know.
the government was supposed to be secular to an extent, we can agree on that. i do not believe that most of the founders would have ever said that a politician should not let his faith inform or effect his policy decisions.
edit: i don't want to take up 30 posts trying to respond to everyone so:
no, being a sinner does not mean you are a bad person. otherwise we must believe that Santorum feels that everyone who has ever lived, barring Jesus and Mary, are bad people. then what are we complaining about? if he honestly feels that way (which he certainly doesn't) than he isn't singling out homosexuals at all.
look, deep within his heart, Santorum may hate homosexuals. but i can't know that, you can't know that, no one can know that. we can only go off of what he says, and i doubt you will ever hear him say that he hates homosexuals or that they are bad people who are inferior.
By neglected their rights and saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry, i can't really think of anything more of a sign of labeling them inferior, besides sending them to labor camps.
Everyone, including you, believes there are limits on the types of marriages that society should allow.
And everyone should be able to agree that homosexuality is NOT the same as beastiality, or child porn, but many conservatives would say they are one in the same
Of course homosexuality is not the same as beastiality. Just like homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality.
You mention child porn, which is funny because it has nothing to do with marriage... but still, there are plenty of people who support homosexual marriage while opposing things like polygamy, the marriage of relatives, or marriage to non-humans.
My point is, at the end of the day there is no objective standard of morality when it comes to marriage, it's just based on social norms.
There's where you're wrong: you can form an objective standard. Just because we don't currently use one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, couldn't exist or that it shouldn't exist. My objective standard is pretty simple: can the parties involved provide informed consent (a child can't, an animal can't, so there you have the major distinction), and does it hurt anyone? You might argue that any sort of objective standard is based on subjective bias, and this is true to some extent, but I don't feel that it invalidates the entire process: rather it pushes us to constantly question whether those bias are influencing our standard in a positive or negative direction, and whether we can ask ourselves what would occur if we held ourselves to different standards, based on evidence and testing.
By that logic btw, I support polygamy and polyandry as long as all parties are informed and are consenting, but I think it's probably better in that circumstance to just not get married for practical reasons: it's bloody hard to regulate the legal benefits that would go with a situation like that.
Damn whitewing I just want to say that your posts on the past couple of pages have been A+.
That's not actually an objective standard though. That's still subjective, and he's right, it's almost impossible for us humans to come up with an unbiased standard. Now does that invalidate the standard? I don't believe so either.
