|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific.
Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics.
sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard.
|
On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard.
We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results.
Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as by a traditional couple? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experiment to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing.
Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to investigate. I am now making the bold statement that if we have good scientific reason to plead one way or another, we view it as an objective and not bound by a cultural context. If a culture has another view, either the culture is wrong or the scientific consensus is wrong. But to determine that, we resort to even better science.
|
On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine.
You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically.
As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure".
As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological :
The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives.
|
US gay here!
I'm very happy that slowly cultures are growing less and less opposed to the idea that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Groups that argue that homosexuality in marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage are complete bullshit as marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times even in our history. Then there are the people that argue slippery slope saying that "well if men can marry other men what's to stop the government from acknowledging my marriage with my dog" to which I respond that slippery slope has almost never come to fruition and that it's just a means of showing the worst case scenario that even I don't think they believe could become true.
To me, I don't really need the government to say that my love for my partner is okay. I don't even want to adopt children so tax break laws for families with kids wouldn't apply to me. It's just so damn frustrating to see people so upset about something that won't directly, or even indirectly, affect their day to day lives. I'm still going to be gay whether or not gay marriage laws pass. I'm still going to love my partner. Just because you stick your nose up and scoff at my lifestyle doesn't mean it will evaporate the second you irrationally and mentally dispose of us.
|
On December 14 2012 22:59 Butterednuts wrote:
US gay here!
I'm very happy that slowly cultures are growing less and less opposed to the idea that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Groups that argue that homosexuality in marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage are complete bullshit as marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times even in our history. Then there are the people that argue slippery slope saying that "well if men can marry other men what's to stop the government from acknowledging my marriage with my dog" to which I respond that slippery slope has almost never come to fruition and that it's just a means of showing the worst case scenario that even I don't think they believe could become true.
To me, I don't really need the government to say that my love for my partner is okay. I don't even want to adopt children so tax break laws for families with kids wouldn't apply to me. It's just so damn frustrating to see people so upset about something that won't directly, or even indirectly, affect their day to day lives. I'm still going to be gay whether or not gay marriage laws pass. I'm still going to love my partner. Just because you stick your nose up and scoff at my lifestyle doesn't mean it will evaporate the second you irrationally and mentally dispose of us.
So as a gay person are you happy with the law that this thread is discussing? If so, did you read more than the thread title?
|
On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : Show nested quote +The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives.
While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science.
To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method.
"Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else?
|
Good or bad is question of value. It's a choice, made by society, and diffused through education and social interactions.
Max Weber, when he shows how rationality is becoming the first and foremost value in occidental society shows how it is not because it is better related to "real world" than any other value. In some way, the attachment to rationality is irrational - accumulation for accumulation. In the end, our attachment to rationality create is described as puting a "leaden weight" over our head : it does not relate to the real world, it is the action of men on the world, on the way we perceive it and apprehand it.
Science study fact, it is not supposed to give you moral, it can at best study the historical evolution of moral, or shows how your actions are influence by it, or how morals are socially / culturally / geographically defined even if you think you are "rational" or "scientific". If moral "relate" to reality, it doesn't mean it's real. Reality is perceived differently, through representations, culture or social position. Even objectivs facts such as diseases or illness are defined differently by people : for exemple, there are certain type of disease of the abdomen in Japan that you cannot find anywhere else, because the Japanese culture gives a certain symbolic weight to this part of the body. In the end, chosing for a value or another is the "war of gods": it's a choice.
|
On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else?
Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself.
Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic.
|
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow.
|
On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow.
What the ...!
Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have.
|
On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have.
There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY.
Meaning, there was a deity present.
I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY.
Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor.
No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not.
The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie.
|
On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie.
Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time.
|
On December 15 2012 01:51 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie. Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time.
In my country that's sacrilegious, one can certainly REGISTER a marriage with a government official solemnizing the marriage by the power of the state but ≠ holy matrimony that distinction is made very clear even by the registrar.
But yes, this slippery slope is slippery. So Disappointed.
|
On December 15 2012 01:51 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie. Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time.
What other countries? I am curious. Because this law is recognizing gay marriage in the eyes of government. However, it's also concluding that gay marriage isn't a religious union.
And therefore giving Religious institutions the right to discriminate homosexuals that want a religious union. Which is fine in my opinion because it forces priests that might do this to respect their doctrines...since they do get paid to uphold those religious values.
|
On December 15 2012 02:07 KingAce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:51 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie. Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time. What other countries? I am curious. Because this law is recognizing gay marriage in the eyes of government. However, it's also concluding that gay marriage isn't a religious union. And therefore giving Religious institutions the right to discriminate homosexuals that want a religious union. Which is fine in my opinion because it forces priests that might do this to respect their doctrines...since they do get paid to uphold those religious values.
As far as I am aware, every state in the US offers marriage without a priest (there may be one or two states that dont, I have not checked them all).
|
On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself.
This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society.
But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world.
On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic.
You are right, I assume some things. But without it, we have no definition. If everyone means a different thing when talking about morality, it doesn't make much sense to talk about it at all. I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me.
Does gay marriage leads to unnecessary suffering? If we want to know this, we could just discuss, or we could try to plan out a scientific endeavor to determine the answer.
|
On December 14 2012 23:14 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 22:59 Butterednuts wrote:
US gay here!
I'm very happy that slowly cultures are growing less and less opposed to the idea that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Groups that argue that homosexuality in marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage are complete bullshit as marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times even in our history. Then there are the people that argue slippery slope saying that "well if men can marry other men what's to stop the government from acknowledging my marriage with my dog" to which I respond that slippery slope has almost never come to fruition and that it's just a means of showing the worst case scenario that even I don't think they believe could become true.
To me, I don't really need the government to say that my love for my partner is okay. I don't even want to adopt children so tax break laws for families with kids wouldn't apply to me. It's just so damn frustrating to see people so upset about something that won't directly, or even indirectly, affect their day to day lives. I'm still going to be gay whether or not gay marriage laws pass. I'm still going to love my partner. Just because you stick your nose up and scoff at my lifestyle doesn't mean it will evaporate the second you irrationally and mentally dispose of us. So as a gay person are you happy with the law that this thread is discussing? If so, did you read more than the thread title?
Being atheist, I don't care about the rights of Church to administer what is and what is not a marriage. So it doesn't affect me :/. Being without any major religious background I don't think I can really speak on the rights of those who hold religion close to them.
|
Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in Germany
Germany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday.
+ Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation.
http://rt.com/news/bestiality-zoophilia-ban-germany-029/
What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass!
EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil
|
On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil
and there it is, the reference to bestiality in a homosexuality thread....was waiting for it....
|
On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil
You have a serious problem if you think comparing bestiality and homosexuality is a valid argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
