Personally, I think a man ought to be able to marry a goat if he wishes to. Same for women.
What do you think?
Please note that there doesn't seem to be much support in the Middle East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_the_Middle_East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_the_Middle_East)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F67241000%2Fgif%2F_67241004_gay_marriage_624-03.gif&hash=f58dfd7d2d61bc84902552ce644f747f" rel="cached" data-hash="f58dfd7d2d61bc84902552ce644f747f" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67241000/gif/_67241004_gay_marriage_624-03.gif)
If the Middle East is against it, there must be something going for it.
Has anyone asked the goats what they think?
I have married the same sex twice. Both were females.
That was clearly unbiblical of you. Just things happen in the US, as well. What baffles me is why the Right Right hasn't passed state constitutional amendments in various states about remarriage, which is adultery. They claim they didn't do so against same-sex marriage merely out bigotry but biblical principles. Unless they lied repeatedly, which is also a sin, they should have made sure remarriage was not only against the law but against state constitutions and Defense of Marriage Act should have included opposite sex remarriage.
I see.
(Shouldn't remarriage mean marriage with the same person more than once?)
Jesus authorized a second marriage in one case. That was my case. :awww:
Personally, I think a man ought to be able to marry a goat if he wishes to. Same for women.
What do you think?
Please note that there doesn't seem to be much support in the Middle East.
At least goats seem to be safe in the Middle East. :D
At least goats seem to be safe in the Middle East. :D
Is the Dutch racist term "geitenneuker" (goatfucker) something that's also known in Germany?
I see.
(Shouldn't remarriage mean marriage with the same person more than once?)
Jesus authorized a second marriage in one case. That was my case.
Oh that's fine, then :yes:
I see.
(Shouldn't remarriage mean marriage with the same person more than once?)
Jesus authorized a second marriage in one case. That was my case.
Oh that's fine, then :yes:
What, you're allowed to divorce?
I'm not bothered to look up the chapter and verse, but I remember something about Jesus quoting Moses. "If you must divorce, here's the circumstances and how you do it..." That's an obvious paraphrase. But if you do divorce and marry someone else, it's still adultery. It just funny how some Christians get all bent out of shape about a couple of the same sex marrying, yet allow people to directly break the commands of Jesus or even do themselves. All the while, Jesus had nothing to say at all about gay relationships.
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A9)
It seems I'm allowed to divorce and to marry another woman.
Whatever, I'm in a same sex marriage. Sex is always the same anyway. :left:
Is the Dutch racist term "geitenneuker" (goatfucker) something that's also known in Germany?
"Ziegenficker" stands for the same racist term as the Dutch "geitenneuker" .
"Ziegenficker" stands for the same racist term as the Dutch "geitenneuker" .
Hm, I don't really get the goat association, but apparently it's strong enough for this to be a multinational slur? :insane:
Some Australians call some New Zealanders "sheep-shaggers".
Or is it the other way round?
Let's be bold! Sheep fuckers.
1. What Australians call New Zealanders
2. What Virginians call West Virginians
3. What Englishmen call Scots or Welshmen
4. What Northeastern Americans call the Amish
5. What Russians call Central Asians (ie. Kazakhstan, as in Borat)
6. What Argentinians call Patagonians
7. What Danes call Swedes
8. What Swedes call Danes
9. You get the idea....
Borrowed from the Urban Dictionary.
Personally, I think a man ought to be able to marry a goat if he wishes to. Same for women.
Poor goat! It doesn't directly affect me so I don't care either way.
How about rich old goat?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wou.edu%2F%7Eaarndt08%2Fmyweb%2FImages%2FRich-Guy.gif&hash=21343a400736907ba62722309b7880a9" rel="cached" data-hash="21343a400736907ba62722309b7880a9" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.wou.edu/~aarndt08/myweb/Images/Rich-Guy.gif)
:P Then I wouldn't say poor.
California's AG Harris will have a hard time coming up with a better title for the ballot initiative recently proposed by one Matt McLaughlin: "The Sodomite Suppression Act" — but the required 100-word (or less? :) ) summary should be easier: As Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/577984/secret-agent-lawyer-files-ca-ballot-initiative-to-put-sodomites-to-death) aptly calls it, Truly Insane!
That should suffice…no?
(Sorry to bring this up, but I read a "serious" article about it in this morning's Modesto Bee…)
We should never forget, there are real crazy people out there!
We should never forget, there are real crazy people out there!
You mean the " Wonketteers"?
You mean the " Wonketteers"?
No, sir! (I chose her site from the 1st page of a Google search, as the least offensive…) I mean McLaughlin.
Some sex marriages are probably on the whole better than no sex marriages.
:faint:
Some sex marriages are probably on the whole better than no sex marriages.
:faint:
Says he of a no sex non-marriage. Scottish women know better.
I do fully agree with you jimbro on Scots women knowing better and as so many have went out with me over then years and I am well remembered by them it is nice to know there is agreement.
Awesome run-on sentence.
That is all.
Like most Liberals, you'd have to -then- agree that killing unborn children was a God-given right! (Or something similar.)
There are some things that most people can agree upon. But, sometimes, their "political" positions obscure or occlude what should be in plain sight: Human life is a "good"…
Some don't admit this, I know. (They embarrass everyone else…) I'd ask a simple question:
Why do you care?
Don't you still want to seem a good Liberal? :)
Same sex "marriage" it's no marriage, it's nothing more than two persons living together and no one cares about what they do no matter how loud they are constantly shouting to the world their sexual deviations.
An heterosexual constantly boring everybody about his sexual preferences would be arrested for harassment, I don't understand why those aren't.
I have beaten this topic to death in another thread about a year ago. Or was it already at My Opera. Now it's dead.
I have beaten this...to death...Now it's dead.
Oh, the horror of it all...how could you?!! :knight: :no:
Same sex "marriage" it's no marriage, it's nothing more than two persons living together and no one cares about what they do no matter how loud they are constantly shouting to the world their sexual deviations.
Gee, that's like every marriage.
Gee, that's like every marriage
No.
And I fully agree with the charming man from Portugal. Good for you my boy!
An heterosexual constantly boring everybody about his sexual preferences would be arrested for harassment, I don't understand why those aren't.
"A black constantly boring people about his equal rights should be arrested for harassment, I don't understand why those niggers aren't". You are a bigotted a**hole Bel--go straight to the hell god made for you and, as always, rj too. :knight: :headbang:
"A black constantly boring people about his equal rights should be arrested for harassment, I don't understand why those niggers aren't".
(You -of course- know how unfairly you posed your example? If not, the next time I walk through Dorchester, south Chicago or Watts, I'll ask you to come along! :) )
Shouldn't that be "A negroid constantly boring people about his perceived racial slights…"?
Can you not come up with your own metaphors, BTW? I mean, "Hell"? Really? :)
Wouldn't you just bash his head in…? (Do you suspect that your "no free will" stance would plea the crime down to involuntary manslaughter? :) )
You are a bigotted a**hole Bel--go straight to the hell god made for you and, as always, rj too.
Yes I am and I'm proud of it but excuse me, there's a problem with rj. We have separated hells, sort of hell apartheid, he can't enter mine. No "I had a dream" amongst the souls of the dead... :)
And I fully agree with the charming man from Portugal. Good for you my boy!
Says a man who isn't married agreeing with another man who isn't married.
And I fully agree with the charming man from Portugal. Good for you my boy!
Says a man who isn't married agreeing with another man who isn't married.
What gives you more experience about marriage, to marry a woman for your entire life or marry a lot of them?
Funny you say that I have no experience with marrying women while you defend to be being married with men, something that I doubt very much you ever did.
True, true marriage it's different, it's a sacrament and as a sinner I confess, beyond my comprehension.
My first inclination has been to stay out of this in the belief that no good can come of it. However, I have some questions that maybe one of the wise heads-- or maybe that should be wiseguy heads-- can answer.
What happens when the inevitable same-sex divorce comes? Who gets the house, kids (how that happens is anybody's guess) sizable portion of the other person's income and so on?
Typically-- at least here in the States-- when a standard male/female divorce happens, she keeps the kids, the house and a sizable portion of his income. But this wouldn't necessarily work when you have a male/male or female/female divorce.
I don't even want to think of the transgender implications. A person who isn't even sure if he/she is male or female probably wouldn't be the best choice for a marriage partner but you can bet the rent it'll happen-- and that if enough of them do marriage, there'll be a divorce sooner rather than later. Then we can really have fun trying to figure out who gets what-- the man that used to be a woman or the woman that used to be a man.
Typically-- at least here in the States-- when a standard male/female divorce happens, she keeps the kids, the house and a sizable portion of his income. But this wouldn't necessarily work when you have a male/male or female/female divorce.
It doesn't sound like such an archaic system works in the first place. A more sensible system would be better for everyone, gay or not. I imagine there must be some state around that has one, so there's probably no necessity to look toward Europe for inspiration.
Jimbro started this party by saying a man should be able to marry a goat if he wanted to. OK. I reckon that's almost as perverted as it gets.
How about a man divorcing his wife because she loves her father's camel more than she loves her husband? I fancy that if men marrying beasts is made "normal" then divorcing because of a beast being the "other man" can't be far behind.
I said no good could come of this.....
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0gCYiWz.jpg&hash=8484795e51ed87e72ce360a77e5a034e" rel="cached" data-hash="8484795e51ed87e72ce360a77e5a034e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/0gCYiWz.jpg)
There are case regarding that matter mjsmsprt40 raises where some women get too much and can be unfair. The rise of queers, goats and camels undermines society and much else and meanwhile jimbro you might be brave here but hiv ma doots ye wull say that stuff in yir ane hoose.
How about a man divorcing his wife because she loves her father's camel more than she loves her husband?
Shouldn't you have given the term
loves scare quotes,
mjm? :) (I read the print article -although it wasn't easy for my old eyes- and your "version" was misleading…)
One could make a good case, that this whole kerfuffle over SSM here in the States is fueled by lawyers who worry that ambulance-chasing will become less lucrative! (But I'd never do such a thing… :) )
How about a man divorcing his wife because she loves her father's camel more than she loves her husband? I fancy that if men marrying beasts is made "normal" then divorcing because of a beast being the "other man" can't be far behind.
I said no good could come of this.....
Well, the camel might have been exceptional.
This, on the other hand, is more interesting.
BANGKOK: Traffic came to a standstill after thousands of ducks took over a main road in Thailand, according to a media report.
The stampede was captured on mobile phone footage after drivers were forced to pull over while the birds rushed past, reported Mirror.
The seemingly never-ending line of ducks lasted well over two minutes before the video was cut off, although all the vehicles on the road were still unable to move, the report said.
According to a translation on Facebook, the man was late for a party when he got caught in the ‘duck traffic jam’.
http://filipinotimes.ae/editors-pick/2015/04/01/duck-stampede-leads-to-traffic-chaos/ (http://filipinotimes.ae/editors-pick/2015/04/01/duck-stampede-leads-to-traffic-chaos/)
How about a man divorcing his wife because she loves her father's camel more than she loves her husband?
Shouldn't you have given the term loves scare quotes, mjm? :) (I read the print article -although it wasn't easy for my old eyes- and your "version" was misleading…)
One could make a good case, that this whole kerfuffle over SSM here in the States is fueled by lawyers who worry that ambulance-chasing will become less lucrative! (But I'd never do such a thing… :) )
True story: One of the factors in my divorce 5.5 years back was that my wife insisted that I loved the cat more than her. Now, this cat was only a kitten, and never achieved any size to speak of so actually having intercourse was an impossibility-- but she insisted that this was, in fact, what I needed to stop doing. This was never mentioned in court-- other factors came into play there, and her charging me with that would have been laughed out of court--but it WAS a factor in play all the same. Good thing it's done with, nobody should have to live with that level of crazy.
I have beaten this topic to death in another thread about a year ago. Or was it already at My Opera. Now it's dead.
It's pretty much like New Year's celebrations (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=720.0). While little happens before or after, there's much excitement and firework when the change passes a country. Some countries experience it sooner, others later, but eventually it will pass.
my wife insisted that I loved the cat more than her.
Now, imagine that it was some huge bearded (yet very sensible, of course...) guy accusing you of loving the cat more than him - there you have the wonders of gay marriage... :faint:
Jimbro started this party by saying a man should be able to marry a goat if he wanted to. OK. I reckon that's almost as perverted as it gets.
I suppose a man can marry a goat, but can a goat marry a man? ;)
If only goats had the freedom they deserve, they might make it work.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fgifshost.com%2F062012%2F1339092384_goat_walks_on_front_legs.gif&hash=cb3818cc0bf7f06c884bde83aae1f963" rel="cached" data-hash="cb3818cc0bf7f06c884bde83aae1f963" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://gifshost.com/062012/1339092384_goat_walks_on_front_legs.gif)
there you have the wonders of gay marriage... :faint:
Are you a
macho man Bel? :knight: :cheers:
Are you a macho man Bel?
I'm restraining myself mightily.
(https://mycelibatelife.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/self-control-motivational-poster-216534.jpeg)
mjm, your post's last sentence says it all — about your unfortunate situation.
I suppose a man can marry a goat, but can a goat marry a man? ;) (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=955.48;msg=37959)
Despite your
smilie (and
Jaybro's and
Jame's comments…), your point highlights the absurdity of the licence contemplated here:
Morality reduced to what one can get away with…
Note who applaud the trend. Note the contortions they make, trying to defend it. Note their lack of shame…
(And consider well the constitution of a man who is shameless! ™)
Are you a macho man Bel?
You know any other way of being a man? good, keep it for yourself.
You know any other way of being a man?
I do! There's the whining Portuguese version.
Forgive me father, for I know not what I do...Forgive me father, for I know not what I do...
Camel?! We have got cars here that do the job already.
Are you a macho man Bel?
You know any other way of being a man? good, keep it for yourself.
Lol...thanks Bel, good to know I still got
it. :knight: :cheers:
EDIT: i.e., the picture I have of you in my mind is right on.
Heavens jimbro maybe the man has a hiccup and why he may repeat his plea or is it an Iberian trait? Hhhmmm.
Folks: I've heard Belfrager's voice… It is deep, rich and resonant.
I'd expect a squeak from Howie and a whine from James - or a bellow, as he seems to have no middle range.
But I myself have often had to hear my recorded voice played back: We seldom sound as we think we should.
There's something between our ears that interferes… …º
Something between our ears interferes with
hearing ourselves… It's partly our ego
and partly our physiognomy; though
it is mostly the bold premise of myth!
When we hear our own voice, we are often
listening to whatever sounds abound:
For good or ill, we'd like to hear the sound
— before such overtakes us. Only when
calm, we pay attention to the timbre
of our own vocalizations. If then.
We don't hear our own voices — and when
we do, we don't recognize them. Limber
is the libido, the ego and the
so-called Id. Silence might have hid our "Huh?"
So: What is "the bold premise of myth"? That's the only line that is pregnant…
Have at it, you-all! :)
So: What is "the bold premise of myth"? That's the only line that is pregnant…
Have at it, you-all! :)
Your poems are quite Spartan. I don't know what "pregnant" could mean in this context.
To the advocates of same-sex marriage: What does marriage mean? Is it a piece of paper issued by the government? Is it time spent by a couple (or a triple or to whichever numbers and configurations of cohabitation your imagination can stretch) after celebrating a certain kind of party with a cake?
If the latter, what's the supposed discrimination? Can't you have a party with a cake right now? If it's the former, then
- What do you think the reason is, from the society's point of view, to have instituted such a piece of paper?
- What does the paper entail that same-sex people are missing out of but should be entitled to? Why should they be entitled to it?
Your questions are good ones,
ersi. I can't tell you what answers those who make a big deal of same-sex marriage would give: Neither can they, as far as I can tell. When one merely imagines a state or status analogous to something natural, that -nowadays- creates an entirely new realm of reality! And woe to those who don't cross over… :)
I don't know what "pregnant" could mean in this context.
Quite simple:
Likely to birth new meaning… (I'll probably midwife it myself. :) )
Your questions are good ones, ersi. I can't tell you what answers those who make a big deal of same-sex marriage would give: Neither can they, as far as I can tell. When one merely imagines a state or status analogous to something natural, that -nowadays- creates an entirely new realm of reality!
But they have a different definition of natural. An incoherent definition, and hence not really a definition, but anyway, "natural" means something different for them.
One of the supposed arguments for same-sex marriage is that there's nothing uniquely natural about hetero partnership. Along the lines that "animals have gay sex too" and such. The problem with such attitude is of course that it takes what
is and makes it out to be a
should.
Let's suppose that "scientists say" that to suppress psychological tendencies is to suppress one's own true nature (psychological, therefore natural, and including homosexuality in "nature" defined this way) and thus the person is committed to a life-long misery. It so happens that this could be said of each and every piece of tendency we have, be it stealing or lying or whatever. Natural born thieves are very miserable when they don't have opportunities to steal for a for a while, and they are very angry when caught. Does this make stealing rightful? No. To have a right is a whole different thing than to have a psychological tendency.
Let's suppose that homosexuality is genetically preconditioned and therefore natural in this sense, i.e. occurs in nature and is a hardwired tendency very hard to fight in oneself. The problem here is that this directly makes homosexuality a most animalistic behaviour, on a par with absolutely every other thinkable form of self-gratification for self-gratification's sake, and on a par also with every deviation and insanity that may or may not have a reason. Psychopathic murder, cannibalism, pedophilia, they all occur in nature, are genetically preconditioned and very hard to fight in oneself. Moreover, there clearly are genetic flaws and diseases that are to be treated to mitigate their effects, instead of letting them be or letting them spread wider. So, this kind of supposed argument for homosexuality is at the same time a very strong argument against it.
Really, I am yet to see an argument for homosexuality that would not be an argument against it at the same time. There's nothing to support the concept of same-sex marriage, nothing coherent. What's going on in the so-called civilised world is nothing rational or legally sensible.
Which is quite different compared to the case of normal marriage. The institution of marriage (by the true definition) not only sanctifies a partnership that is natural, it's also biologically fruitful (or at least naturally intended as such), meaningful so that even children see the point, and it's right and good because provides incentive to overcome and suppress adverse tendencies both individually and socially. None of this can be said of homosexuality.
Since there are no rational and socially constructive arguments for same-sex marriage, it can only have irrational and destructive arguments. Anybody care to prove me wrong?
The only people I have seen to make "a big deal" out of this I've seen anywhere are the few people who are dead set against it. It also matters to those who in some places can't marry, though in my opinion it counts less than being able to live and love. I think Norway is a good case.
Norway, in 1902, got a law that made it illegal for homosexual men (not women) to have sex. In 1925 a proposal to replace it with a minimum age for homosexual men failed, as did a 1954 proposal to scrap it all together, and the law wasn't repealed until 1972. It roughly followed the "concubinage" paragraph that made it illegal for an unmarried man and woman to live together. Repealing these laws might have been radical in 1925, but hardly in 1972. What took so long? Somebody "made a big deal" of it for the longest time.
So change, when it happened, happened fast. Norway "inherited" a new cohabitation law from Sweden which meant that cohabitation was almost the same as getting married. In a way that was a much smoother approach than the concubinage law. The punishment for living together unmarriedly for long enough wasn't a fine or prison, it was near-marriage. You stay long enough with me, I take half yours when you leave.
Then, while rear-guard action had delayed decriminalisation with half a century, it only took nine years for Norway to get a same-sex partnership law in 1981, somewhere in between cohabitation and marriage. From being behind the times, Norway was ahead of all countries but the Netherlands and Denmark. Then it took 28 years (2009) to remove all the remaining gay special treatments and turn near-marriage into marriage, giving gays the same range of options as non-gay.
The law change in 1972 was clearly overdue. The more radical change in 1981 got more attention, while few took much notice of the changes in 2009, just a couple Christians who made "a big(gish) deal" of it. Nothing compared to the month and years of agonising in the US.
Of course they don't kill gays for being gay in the US, often, so this is not where the battle is happening, but in Africa, and to a much lesser extent Asia.
Let's suppose that homosexuality is genetically preconditioned and therefore natural in this sense, i.e. occurs in nature and is a hardwired tendency very hard to fight in oneself. The problem here is that this directly makes homosexuality a most animalistic behaviour, on a par with absolutely every other thinkable form of self-gratification for self-gratification's sake, and on a par also with every deviation and insanity that may or may not have a reason. Psychopathic murder, cannibalism, pedophilia, they all occur in nature, are genetically preconditioned and very hard to fight in oneself. Moreover, there clearly are genetic flaws and diseases that are to be treated to mitigate their effects, instead of letting them be or letting them spread wider. So, this kind of supposed argument for homosexuality is at the same time a very strong argument against it.
That's a strange argument, but I guess one a Buddhist monk could make, as it doesn't just apply to "Psychopathic murder, cannibalism, pedophilia" but heterosexual partnership as well. Those too are based on our animal urges, urges passed on to the next generation. Stay away from any marriage. That means less suffering, and you are one step closer to nibbana.
while rear-guard action had delayed decriminalisation
Ha Ha. Double entendre.
:-[ I'm sorry.
That's a strange argument, but I guess one a Buddhist monk could make, as it doesn't just apply to "Psychopathic murder, cannibalism, pedophilia" but heterosexual partnership as well. Those too are based on our animal urges, urges passed on to the next generation. Stay away from any marriage. That means less suffering, and you are one step closer to nibbana.
Let me get this straight. You say that heterosexual partnership is based on animal urges (and assumedly only that). And this makes gay marriages (which even in principle cannot be
for anything else than self-gratification for self-gratification's sake) okay, right?
If so, then this repeats in quite pure form the view of marriage that I attribute to gay advocates. You could have said something different, anything new to improve the impression, but you didn't.
The only people I have seen to make "a big deal" out of this I've seen anywhere are the few people who are dead set against it. ......
Repealing these laws might have been radical in 1925, but hardly in 1972. What took so long? Somebody "made a big deal" of it for the longest time.
Or, you could say it took so long because nobody gave a damn about those laws, until somebody made a big deal and demanded them be repealed.
Let me get this straight. You say that heterosexual partnership is based on animal urges (and assumedly only that). And this makes gay marriages (which even in principle cannot be for anything else than self-gratification for self-gratification's sake) okay, right?
If so, then this repeats in quite pure form the view of marriage that I attribute to gay advocates. You could have said something different, anything new to improve the impression, but you didn't.
It's your line of argument. I assume it makes sense to you somehow. To me "animal urges" is not in itself something to be deplored (as beneath humans) nor celebrated (as natural, and thus intrinsically commendable).
We are animals, we are talking monkeys, which can explain some of our idiosyncrasies.
(Nearly all of them if we were to believe some evolutionary psychologists, who sometimes seem to make it their task to make stories of why we are as we believe we are, scientific theologians in other words, rather than making testable hypotheses.) Some of these idiosyncrasies we do tend to celebrate, like our innate sociability and sense of fairness, other we tend to deplore, like our tendency to gang up on people when afraid.
That we like to partner up in monogamous partnerships (or as more cynical and sharper observers say, serially monogamous partnerships with episodes of cheating) is usually put on the "celebrate" rather than the "deplore" list, but again Buddhist monks would disagree. Some evolutionary psychologists claim that this tendency to pair up has helped our survival, in encouraging division of labour. We wouldn't need to pair up purely for procreational purposes, as living in lifelong pairs is more the exception than the rule.
Or, you could say it took so long because nobody gave a damn about those laws, until somebody made a big deal and demanded them be repealed.
That was almost certainly not the case neither in 1925 nor 1954, and probably not the case in 1972. The law was seen as wrong and unfair (and eventually obsolete) by the legal community, though kept for political opportunism. Bad laws are a burden also for those they do not directly affect.
Now, the partnership law of 1981 and the marriage law of 2009 did come after campaigning by gay rights activists, but was also propelled by a sense of fairness and common sense. From a practical point of view the law of 2009 added little not already in the 1981 law, except the word "marriage" instead of the word "partnership", and that homosexual partnership was no longer exceptional as the same law applied to homosexuals as heterosexuals, there was no longer any specific gay law.
We are animals, we are talking monkeys, which can explain some of our idiosyncrasies.
Some evolutionary psychologists claim that this tendency to pair up has helped our survival, in encouraging division of labour.
Those "evolutionary psychologists" are also talking monkeys, right?
Some evolutionary psychologists claim that this tendency to pair up has helped our survival, in encouraging division of labour. We wouldn't need to pair up purely for procreational purposes, as living in lifelong pairs is more the exception than the rule.
Here you came closest to the true meaning of marriage, but not quite close enough to prove me wrong about the impression that gay-rightists leave.
Marriage is not meant to pair up purely for procreational purposes. If it were, arrangements would have been made for it to commonly last only a night or so. But no, arrangements have been made to commonly assure the partners that it's meant for entire life. So, in addition to procreational purposes, marriage is also supposed to ensure the continuity in upbringing the next generation. Fail to acknowledge any of these factors, and you fail to understand what the proponents of traditional marriage mean by marriage.
The rest of what you say either confirms that the advocates of same-sex marriage hold the animal urges closest and dearest (a la talking monkeys) or is totally off topic (a la Buddhist monks). In normal rational discourse, neither of your points could enter the topic - namely, monkeys and monks don't get married. However, as I already noted, this topic is not rational at all. In a rational world, it would be self-evident that "same-sex marriage" is a logically impossible concept.
Laws are funny things. Or maybe I should say laws are weird animals, like talking monkeys. Last year, the parliaments of Finland and Estonia voted in laws that were popularly termed "gay law" among the ordinary people. The votes were narrow and the whole process aroused controversy in both countries.
In Finland, the initiative was started by a group of gay activists who managed to gather the sufficient amount of signatures. The initiative entailed a bunch of substantial changes to the current marriage law, such as removal of reference to gender of the partners when registering marriage and, in line with this, removal of any special considerations regarding adoption rights. The law started as an ostensible grassroots project and was passed in the parliament, sharply dividing all political parties internally - except greens (unanimously pro) and christian democrats (unanimously against) - making it appear like a breakthrough for direct democracy initiative, which is rather rare anywhere in the world.
Now, the Finnish law makes sense insofar as it merely modifies an existing law. However, it redefines marriage so that it's not marriage any more. Marriage is a partnership to found a family, but the redefinition disregards the family function (it doesn't exclude it, but it makes it merely an incidental and therefore not a defining characteristic). The law initiative was promoted with slogans like "my sister also has a right to happiness" (what is "right to happiness" and how does a marriage law, framed whichever way, guarantee it? or was it a thinly veiled reference to "right to incest"?).
In Estonia, a whole new law, called "cohabitation law" was pushed by the government onto the parliament. It passed, while the general population with no say over the matter near-unanimously opposed it, with some sporadic grassroots campaigns to stop the law. The law provides for a "cohabitation contract" and heavily references marriage and family laws to make the "contract" partnership as close to marriage as possible. (The adoption rights concern only the child of the partner, if I have understood correctly.)
The Estonian law does not make any sense at all. It merely duplicates the provisions of separate marriage and family laws, while avoiding any reference to the gender of the "cohabitation partners". It also abstains from stating any point or purpose to the "cohabitation contract". If it's the same as marriage, then why a different law? If it's not the same, then where is the difference? One of the supporters of the Estonian law argued that the popularity of marriage was appallingly low (true, more than half of the children are born outside marriages, and the rate of registered marriages is 35% among couples living together) and this must be due to clumsy and inconvenient bureaucracy of the marriage law. The unmarried forms of cohabitation would all naturally become subject to the new cohabitation law, it was said. The truth is now that the new law only applies between partners who sign with a notary a "cohabitation contract" (isn't this an inconvenient bureaucracy made a precondition of the applicability of the law?) while all content of the contract is derived from the marriage and family laws. The time is not ripe yet to pronounce verdict on the effectiveness of the law, but since it merely re-states what was already effective for marriages, it must have equally little chance of success.
I'd expect a squeak from Howie and a whine from James - or a bellow, as he seems to have no middle range.
I have lost all respect for you Mister Oakdale and not because of this cheap juvenile shot.
But they have a different definition of natural. An incoherent definition, and hence not really a definition, but anyway, "natural" means something different for them.
I am going to patiently please ask you to retract this idiotic statement quickly, ok? If you, Eric Whatsyourname, were gay, wtf would be natural to your lousy dumb ass? I am caustic because that's the way I am. get over it.
Let's suppose that "scientists say"
You don't know what science is, you hate science and u pretty much live in an alternative universe, why should anyone here listen to your ramblings? And to have Oak back you up...is not a good thing.
Let's suppose that homosexuality is genetically preconditioned and therefore natural in this sense, i.e. occurs in nature and is a hardwired tendency very hard to fight in oneself. The problem here is that this directly makes homosexuality a most animalistic behaviour, on a par with absolutely every other thinkable form of self-gratification for self-gratification's sake, and on a par also with every deviation and insanity that may or may not have a reason.
Are you shitting me? Let's quote some sources here asshole, because u are speaking off the top of your head like a fool. Your deep rooted prejudices come screaming through here.
Let's suppose that homosexuality is genetically prec.onditioned and therefore natural in this sense, i.e. occurs in nature and is a hardwired tendency very hard to fight in oneself.
Let's suppose that you are from the planet 'Idiot'
Really, I am yet to see an argument for homosexuality that would not be an argument against it at the same time. There's nothing to support the concept of same-sex marriage, nothing coherent.
You can't imagine gay Eric, anymore than you can imagine an end to yourself. My son, Joshua, is gay and afraid. He is brilliantly artistic, but because of fools like you and Oakdale, he has a hard time expressing himself in what you call "your world". All I can tell him is that Josh, this world was not made for one as beautiful as you. How much do assholes like you wish to stifle his talent and rights...oh for the love of god, please tell me...somebody please tell me. Stop being logical and think fer chrissakes.
It's your line of argument. I assume it makes sense to you somehow. To me "animal urges" is not in itself something to be deplored (as beneath humans) nor celebrated (as natural, and thus intrinsically commendable).
We are animals, we are talking monkeys, which can explain some of our idiosyncrasies. (Nearly all of them if we were to believe some evolutionary psychologists, who sometimes seem to make it their task to make stories of why we are as we believe we are, scientific theologians in other words, rather than making testable hypotheses.) Some of these idiosyncrasies we do tend to celebrate, like our innate sociability and sense of fairness, other we tend to deplore, like our tendency to gang up on people when afraid.
That we like to partner up in monogamous partnerships (or as more cynical and sharper observers say, serially monogamous partnerships with episodes of cheating) is usually put on the "celebrate" rather than the "deplore" list, but again Buddhist monks would disagree. Some evolutionary psychologists claim that this tendency to pair up has helped our survival, in encouraging division of labour. We wouldn't need to pair up purely for procreational purposes, as living in lifelong pairs is more the exception than the rule.
As many time before jax, you are a voice of calm reason.
In a rational world, it would be self-evident that "same-sex marriage" is a logically impossible concept.
Course it is and yet it affects the entire western world. The real question it's why and how that's happening.
The domination of a lobby gay in media, politics and financial areas it's obvious. The fashion/artistic industry it's the top of the iceberg aimed to be perceived as funny, friendly and trendy.
The entire thing is sinister.
Really, I am yet to see an argument for homosexuality that would not be an argument against it at the same time. There's nothing to support the concept of same-sex marriage, nothing coherent.
You can't imagine gay Eric, anymore than you can imagine an end to yourself. My son, Joshua, is gay and afraid. He is brilliantly artistic, but because of fools like you and Oakdale, he has a hard time expressing himself in what you call "your world". How much do you assholes wish to stifle his talents...oh god, please tell me?
If there's a "your world" for me, there's also a "your world" for you and for Joshua too. Not my problem when you can't deal with it as effectively as I can. It's
particularly not my problem when you reject the solutions I have on offer.
As to sources, last year this country went through a massive gay campaign and adopted a gay law in the process, so I am loaded with sources. But I won't embarrass you with this. You have never demonstrated any ability to deal with facts.
I have lost all respect for you Mister Oakdale and not because of this cheap juvenile shot.
Let's suppose that you are from the planet 'Idiot'
Eh.
Though I agree. If you are to insult someone, at least you can put in some effort.
My son, Joshua, is gay and afraid. He is brilliantly artistic, but because of fools like you and Oakdale, he has a hard time expressing himself in what you call "your world". All I can tell him is that Josh, this world was not made for one as beautiful as you. How much do assholes like you wish to stifle his talent and rights...oh for the love of god, please tell me...somebody please tell me. Stop being logical and think fer chrissakes.
If he's afraid, it's because you taught him to be,
James; or, at least, failed to teach him how to deal with his fears…
If he's "brilliantly artistic" he will (should he overcome his fears…?) likely find success. But if he has a hard time expressing himself then he is
not any kind of "artistic" — exchange the "r" in that word for an "u". He's "special" - because he's your son, and the first to change from a caterpillar to a butterfly? :) If he's done something artistic, others will appreciate it.
(
Jeez, Picasso was hailed as a genius…!)
If he's done something hateful and not been applauded, what did you (or he) expect? If he hasn't done anything, what's your gripe?
I can be (and certainly have been…) an asshole! But I sincerely doubt I've had any effect on your Josh's chances for success — in whatever field of endeavor he's chosen or pursued.
Just so you know I still have the ability to sting,
James, calling people assholes for undisclosed reasons is (I take it) your SOP. I'd not -as you might have guessed- promote a "Poofs get priority" policy.
Of course, that -to you, and your son (?)- makes me a
hater, and -of course- an asshole; but your
take on "free will" obviates any point you'd make! :)
I'll repeat what I said: If Josh is any kind of artist, he'll create; and others will appreciate his work.
I think you greatly over-estimate his fragility… But I could be wrong.
My 2 cents on this subject:
- We are assuming too much what the reasons are for someone to be homosexual. There are many possibilities.
In a religious context, where homosexuality is a concern, I have taught that the Bible speaks against homosexuality that is caused by strict rebellion against God (or against whatever is good). There's no sense on believing that it condemns people whose homosexuality wasn't chosen by them because of evil purposes. (This is another discussion: is homosexuality a choice anyway?) I believe that many of them wouldn't have chosen it if they could. So, my advice has been: try to understand, and offer help if someone asks for.
- There's no need to prove why someone is allowed to do some thing. But there should be a good reason for someone to be disallowed any thing.
- We are assuming too much what the reasons are for someone to be homosexual.
No one is concerned, amongst those who opposes same sex "marriage", about "reasons" to be homosexual. We are discussing (or trying to discuss) why laws about such an imbecility as "same sex marriage" are intrinsically wrong.
Besides that, it seems to me that some posters feels some weird attraction for their opponents and engage into a sort of "the most you oppose me, the most I love you" kind of thing... but that's typical of DnD..
You hit the nail well and very truly on the head there Belfrager. Apart from any stance I have on morality that corner seems to have more power than any other minority from 2 or 3% of a population. Now the President of the land of the free wants to ban any medical group that works with anyone not wanting to be queer. I know, I know folks there are some head shrinkers in that part who think they can cure the unfortunates but there are others who do not lean on the poor beggars but try to assist them. But we will get the usual hype from the open-mind selef esteemed who will draw swords if you dare to challenge them. So much for free speech and a 'liberal society.'
You two are cute together. :love:
I think y'all need to let go of gender roles and just accept you're meant to be.
Oh sounds very principled nut you just need to say you don't agree with them and this tiny bunch go ape. So much for freedom of opinion.
:left::right::left: Interesting. Interesting. :rolleyes:
There's a random nut (or two) in that.
Oh sounds very principled nut you just need to say you don't agree with them and this tiny bunch go ape. So much for freedom of opinion.
However ape folks may go, that impacts your freedom of opinion not at all.
They're free to go ape. You're free to have an opinion.
If there's a "your world" for me, there's also a "your world" for you and for Joshua too. Not my problem when you can't deal with it as effectively as I can. It's particularly not my problem when you reject the solutions I have on offer.
We really have to have a name for this kind of cop-out. Maybe "Eric's Grand Cop-out #1"--you use it frequently enough. Reality is not 'really' within you Eric, everything is odd, ethereal and wispy stuff. You lag way behind when climbing the mountain of nature because the experimentalists ahead of you, keep kicking up stones that hit you in the head. :knight: :cheers:
(I love you anyway).
You hit the nail well and very truly on the head there Belfrager. Apart from any stance I have on morality that corner seems to have more power than any other minority from 2 or 3% of a population. Now the President of the land of the free wants to ban any medical group that works with anyone not wanting to be queer. I know, I know folks there are some head shrinkers in that part who think they can cure the unfortunates but there are others who do not lean on the poor beggars but try to assist them. But we will get the usual hype from the open-mind selef esteemed who will draw swords if you dare to challenge them. So much for free speech and a 'liberal society.'
You are so much more deranged than I ever thought RJ, and I am being serious here. Do you ever really listen to yourself? Your writing is so haphazard and full of stupid mistakes, that I don't think you think--you just click the keys and hope for the best.
I've always maintained that RJ types with his knuckles… :) (Probably walks on them, too!) But it wasn't so long ago that the DSM listed homosexuality as a (sometimes) treatable malady. So, your charge of "derangement" is not, in this case, supported.
(I should add -missing the whisper function- that you should not have brought up personal circumstances. It unfairly marks those who'd disagree with your opinion as personally attacking you and yours… But you brought it on yourself, and now you have to accept the consequences of your indiscretion.
I'd suggest we not mention "Josh" again…)
If he's afraid, it's because you taught him to be, James; or, at least, failed to teach him how to deal with his fears…
I will illuminate you. My son Josh, was yanked away from me in the middle of the night by my alcoholic/prescription-drug addicted wife who stole my car, my bank account and my precious baby son of 9 years old. She left to parts unknown for years, until I was finally able to locate her. We had a legal blow out in Missouri, where the judge all but declared my former wife legally insane. She died a few short years later at the age of 51 in my arms with all three of my children in attendance. At her death, she wore a t-shirt on that said "I Am a Porn Star".
Pretty fucked up story, imho.
“The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land...". ― Thomas Henry Huxley, "On the Reception of the 'Origin of Species'. :knight: :cheers:
My condolences and my sympathy,
James. But I still believe a discussion/debate forum is the wrong venue to disclose such things.
Pretty fucked up story, imho.
That is
not a
story. It is a recital of disjointed facts.
I don't mean to belittle your pain or dispute the turmoil those events must have caused you. But they have no bearing upon this topic, here.
——————————————————————————————————
I'll give you an example of how personal stories
can be used…
Many years ago my mother had married yet again and I had a new set of siblings. The youngest of which was
gay, his oldest sister told me. And she used his own explanation to show me why:
She made the OK sign with her left hand and poked the index finger of my right hand through the O… Then she tightened the O to lower-case… :) She told me he'd said to her, "That's the difference!"
When I stopped laughing, I asked "Is the boy
so dumb that he doesn't know that girls have assholes too?!"
Obviously, the boy's problems went far beyond failing to pay attention in Biology class… You'll admit that? Even on such a short take?
Come on Oakdale show your usual concern for the proper control of words here and remind him he cursed twice!
But it wasn't so long ago that the DSM listed homosexuality as a (sometimes) treatable malady.
The DSM is theoretical psychiatry on 'orange sunshine'.
I imagine you must also 'kinda' believe that young girls' sexual development is driven by jealousy over the lack of a penis and sexual desire for their father, eh? :knight: :cheers:
Obviously, the boy's problems went far beyond failing to pay attention in Biology class… You'll admit that?
I'm not sure which boy you are referring to in this story that has a "problem"(?). :knight: :cheers:
My son Josh, was yanked away from me in the middle of the night by my alcoholic/prescription-drug addicted wife who stole my car, my bank account and my precious baby son of 9 years old.
Wow. Bad decision making is a habit of yours. Literally protected nothing here. Good job.
I imagine […]
You have a fertile (…I'd say febrile :) ) imagination,
James!
First the car, second the bank account and third precious babies. To each culture it's own order of values.
I'd ask (specially, those proponents of SSM…) to view this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=54f79fca-0000-2d9e-8b1f-001a113bc310&feature=iv&src_vid=7p5KVVXOJC4&v=um3EmS9DKsI). It is longer than I'd like; but it is more than enough quickly to the point. (And I've been asked to view longer presentations… :) )
My question is: What do homosexuals have to say about such issues? What is their reaction to such concerns?
Indeed, are they even "involved"…?
Of course, there can not be a "homosexual" reply. Only individuals are such, and they are not a bloc… But a few here are queer, and I'd like their honest opinions about this.
Does it matter, to them? (I'd prefer not to dispute any and every claim made in the presentation… I'd merely focus upon the relative importance of the main contention.) And, of course, I'd reply! :)
The above italicization of course means that a general conclusion will be predicated on individual responses… This is the most we can do, to start.
First the car, second the bank account and third precious babies. To each culture it's own order of values.
Not so.
Read it again.
Howie's attention span doesn't cover punctuation… (That is, his attention doesn't cover the span of words separated by punctuation marks.) He only recognizes what facilitates his bilious intent.
Asking Howie to read again is like asking Vesuvius to un-erupt!
First the car, second the bank account and third precious babies. To each culture it's own order of values.
Not so.
Read it again.
That was the order of the stolen "property" description, I don't know what you mean tt92.
Yet one more thread that has degenerated into personal attacks and vitriol.
Yet one more thread that has degenerated into personal attacks and vitriol.
Settle down Jimbro, this is nothing. We have seen worse...I know. :knight: :cheers:
First the car, second the bank account and third precious babies. To each culture it's own order of values.
Not so.
Read it again.
That was the order of the stolen "property" description, I don't know what you mean tt92.
JS hasn't bothered to defend himself, so I will presume to do so, without rancour.
What he said was "My son Josh, was yanked away from me in the middle of the night by my alcoholic/prescription-drug addicted wife who stole my car, my bank account and my precious baby son of 9 years old."
In English, that sentence structure puts the most important thing first, and last.
It says, in effect, "An important thing happened. Not only that, a couple of other things as well, and the important thing."
It says, in effect, "An important thing happened. Not only that, a couple of other things as well, and the important thing."
Yes...I see. You speak logically backwards.
:yes:
Yes...I see. You speak logically backwards.
Not logic. Rhetoric.
I have a preference for languages like English or Swedish that put the important,
stressed, part of the sentence first, to languages like German or Czech that put it last. When encountering a multiple-clause-nesting soporiferous windbag, in languages of the second category, I will have to, for the most salient part of the sentence, attentively wait for the very end to parse and analyse the sentence in question, to discern matters that could be of interest to me, while after just the first couple words in English or Swedish I can blissfully snooze.
This is not what this is about, but to get the maximum report from the reader. The dramatic effect (or affect) is greater with a build-up to the largest issue, this doesn't depend on language, but the reader's empathy.
To make an example: "Known side effects of this cough medisine are:
- short dizzy spells if partaking in swirling dances less than an hour after taking the medicine
- a slight dryness of the throat when swallowing
- a temporary discolouration of the tongue
- a slow excruciating death by the excretion of the intestines in an explosive diarrhoea"
In this, slightly construed, example one of the side-effects is more noteworthy than the other three. Any side-effect after it will have less impact on the reader (a callous drug company could put it 2/3rd of the way to the end to reduce the risk of it getting noticed).
This ordering can be subverted. Douglas Adams was fond of book-ending an item of great importance with an utterly trivial one for a humorous effect.
I have a preference for languages like English or Swedish that put the important, stressed, part of the sentence first, to languages like German or Czech that put it last.
Latin languages put it in the right place.
Too much wording for nothing.
Latin languages put it in the right place.
Cui bono? :)
Latin languages put it in the right place.
Too much wording for nothing.
Little doubt left. You
are rjhowie's long lost little brother.
I'm not so sure.Surely the parents of such a creature would have exposed it on a hillside.
ที่ได้รับการดูแล
:)
Little doubt left. You are rjhowie's long lost little brother.
You mean, I am
the little brother of rjhowie, long ago lost.
Who I am? the little brother
Of who? rjhowie
Something else? yes, long ago lost.
Even for that same sex marriage would be an impossibility.
Maybe an Irish hillside tt92? Now just think if Belfrager and I were found to be related a meeting meal in Lisbon would be an interesting event.
We can't ever be related, but I enjoy eating with the enemy, I can always poison them. :)
:lol:
Ah, a Lucrezia Borgia follower!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.toonvectors.com%2Fimages%2F35%2F17323%2Ftoonvectors-17323-460.jpg&hash=337b6d23bcf8422d440651def5b78ce1" rel="cached" data-hash="337b6d23bcf8422d440651def5b78ce1" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cdn.toonvectors.com/images/35/17323/toonvectors-17323-460.jpg)
Ah, a Lucrezia Borgia follower!
Welcome to civilization, savage. :)
And i bet you would do it subtly Belfrager. 8)
Poisoning is a lost art since Americans and their irritating pistols rules the world...
Poisoning is a lost art since Americans and their irritating pistols rules the world...
Or it has been perfected! (Few practitioners are found out…! :) ) Or do you only bemoan amateurs and incompetents retiring from the fray? :)
Poisoning is a lost art since Americans and their irritating pistols rules the world...
One part Portuguese financial wizardry plus one part henbane=Belfrager's toxic assessment of America's role in the world. :zzz: Keep up the good work Mr. Belfrager. :zzz:
Sleep well, you clearly need it.
Sorry, wake up, the homosexual prime minister of Luxembourg is gong to marry with his homosexual boy friend tomorrow.
I just woke up.
If we really ruled the world, I'd have a Portuguese slave.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgc.allpostersimages.com%2Fimages%2FP-473-488-90%2F73%2F7357%2FYUJS100Z%2Fposters%2Fportuguese-slave-owner-showing-the-method-of-flogging-slaves-who-have-tried-to-escape.jpg&hash=9b346e7801fe0f35ea0f34890be36fb6" rel="cached" data-hash="9b346e7801fe0f35ea0f34890be36fb6" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/73/7357/YUJS100Z/posters/portuguese-slave-owner-showing-the-method-of-flogging-slaves-who-have-tried-to-escape.jpg)
==================
the homosexual prime minister of Luxembourg is gong to marry with his homosexual boy friend tomorrow
And the happy couple will have their honeymoon in Iran. :}
Yeuch. ks for that news on Luxembourg Belfrager and will give that country a miss on my next continental visit.
One homosexual does not an entire country ruin.
http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-british-lesbians-and-gay-brits-notable-british-gays/famous-gay-and-lesbian (http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-british-lesbians-and-gay-brits-notable-british-gays/famous-gay-and-lesbian)
William III, Prince of Orange, King of England (1650-1702)
Speculations about William III's sexuality have been countered by his English and American biographers, who have been unwilling to entertain the idea that a man of his nobility of character and special historical significance could have loved other men. Dutch writers on the other hand have been much more willing to accept the evidence that William was, indeed, bisexual.
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/william_III.html (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/william_III.html)
Oh this is an old one and not some wonderful disclosure jimbro. Just because the Dutch or some of them want to believe the bisexual thing proves damn nothing. He had two great loves. One was his wife to whom he constantly wrote to when away on military campaigns and secondly his Protestant faith. The keech about the sexual hint is a fable. In more practical terms he sacked a Court member of staff for his incompetence and the man spread a rumour. King William when it was brought to his notice found it hard to understand why the man said such lies.
Oh and on a passing note, King William was King of Great Britain NOT just England and was married to the ousted King James's daughter. The overwhelming majority of the population supported his coming over to get rid of a bad man on the throne. William put paid to the corruption of James, introduced the bill of Rights which banned torture and such giving people the right to their own minds. He was the last monarch to fight in a battle scene and led from the front and was even wounded at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. And his adversary, James? He stayed in the background and fled south to Dublin beating his own Royal guards. One Irish upper clash lady in Dublin used excrement to describe him and that they had the wrong King leading them!
"King Billy had an orange cat which sat upon the fender
And every time it caught a mouse it shouted No Surrender!
:lol:
He had two great loves. One was his wife to whom he constantly wrote to when away on military campaigns and secondly his Protestant faith.
:lol:
What's next? Henry VIII and his seven wifes?
Poor Ana Bolena... can God have mercy for her soul.
Henry 8th may have started well but he ended up a dangerous clown with all those wives. What he did to them was a scandal. The Reformation in England was a paltry affair and lacked principle. It was more about sour grapes because the Pope would not support divorce. Up in the separate Kingdom of Scotland the same event was from the bottom not the top and wide based on principle arguments rather than some daft King and divorces grumps!The English religious side was very different from ours and thank heavens for that. I wouldn't have had any time for Henry but thankfully I was on the good side of that Border!
I wouldn't have had any time for Henry but thankfully I was on the good side of that Border!
Good God! How old ARE you?
When a mind wanders aimlessly, time is no barrier!
The English religious side was very different from ours and thank heavens for that.
Ooohh, do I notice there rjhowie's independentist hidden side?
Amazing, it's what I say, we'll see you someday asking for a private audience with His Holiness in Rome. Begging for an indulgence, I suppose? :)
For those with strong views on the Irish and/or Roman Catholics and/or gay marriage:
Ireland same-sex referendum set to approve gay marriage (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32856232)
Early results suggest the Republic of Ireland has voted to legalise same-sex marriage in a historic referendum. More than 3.2m people were asked whether they wanted to amend the country's constitution to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Government ministers have said they believe it will pass, while prominent "no" campaigners have conceded defeat. Counting started at 09:00 BST on Saturday morning. An "unusually high" turnout has been reported.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F660%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F83187000%2Fjpg%2F_83187822_mrsbrown.jpg&hash=c140fd9180dd9966c6f49a6ed694f047" rel="cached" data-hash="c140fd9180dd9966c6f49a6ed694f047" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/83187000/jpg/_83187822_mrsbrown.jpg)
If the change is approved, the Republic of Ireland would become the first country to legalise same-sex marriage through a popular vote. Minister for Health Leo Varadkar, who earlier this year came out as the Republic of Ireland's first openly gay minister, said the campaign had been "almost like a social revolution".
There's this (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-asking-questions-about-funding-for-referendum-campaign-1.2205469) commentary (and investigative journalism… Hey! Remember when reporters did that? For newspapers? : ) ) the
money quote from which is:
This is foreign money being systematically invested to change public opinion, to deliver seamlessly a Yes in a referendum that has enormous consequences for family law for generations.
All the while soothing us by spinning it as just “seventeen little words”. Can American money buy an Irish referendum?
(source (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-asking-questions-about-funding-for-referendum-campaign-1.2205469))
From America? Hm. Soros?
Are the forces for the annihilation of the human race in ascendency?
This is foreign money being systematically invested to change public opinion, [...]
One of the most important phrases ever written here.
Good to know that in other countries there are also people that can see the truth. There's still hope.
Are the forces for the annihilation of the human race in ascendency?
I don't know if you are being ironic but I expect not. Resistance is not futile, resistance works and wins.
Good to know that in other countries there are also people that can see the truth. There's still hope.
The truth is that the Irish people came out of the closet and there's no way to get them back in there. There's no hope.
Good to know that in other countries there are also people that can see the truth. There's still hope.
The truth is that the Irish people came out of the closet and there's no way to get them back in there. There's no hope.
How many of them had the trouble of going out to vote for such imbecility? probably 10%. There's hope. :)
Ireland has officially passed the same-sex marraige referendum with 1.2 million people voting in its favour. The result was confirmed just before 7pm on Saturday although the result was clear from very early in the count. The Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a large 60.5 per cent turnout.
In total, 1,201,607 people voted in favour with 734,300 against, giving a majority of 467,307. The total valid poll was 1,935,907.
There are only 4,500,000 people in the country. And about 10,000,000 backward people in Portugal, one of the other PIIGS.
Oink, oink!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr06%2F2013%2F7%2F10%2F16%2Fenhanced-buzz-11993-1373488014-10.jpg&hash=e8006ff75ebac5476e0e2aa0dd85e78c" rel="cached" data-hash="e8006ff75ebac5476e0e2aa0dd85e78c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/7/10/16/enhanced-buzz-11993-1373488014-10.jpg)
If two priests decide to marry each other, do they need a third priest to officiate?
And the Irish Referendum also shows an awful blot of people some 38% didn't even bother to vote. Surprising.
Same-sexers are extraordinarily touchy. Therefore John Haldane makes a case against them as politely as humanly possible.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smUlmLDf2G8[/video]
At the one hour point he seems to forget the rampant conservatism that took told. America didn't go "on party." It went in the opposite direction. The 1960's and 70's were the reaction and backlash to this. It might be right that the sexual revolution can be tied to the world wars, but he misses a very conservative decade in the US. As far as LGBT goes, it came from police harassment of LGBT people, particularly the Stone Wall Inn. John Haldane also misses that homosexuality also exists in nature. Philosophers sit high in their ivory towers writing their papers on nature and whatnot but don't look outside the window to see what's really happening in nature. On what's "natural", as species pair-bonds for long periods of time if not for life, it seems unnatural to try to force humans to live alone and celibate. Before proclaiming what's natural and unnatural, first observe nature and what appears natural in the species. For humans, the natural behavior for most would be to find an opposite sex partner, but for a few percent it's to find a same-sex partner (based studies that go as far to show some brain structures in homosexual men are more similar to women than to heterosexual men. WW II didn't cause that..) The nice thing about being a philosopher must be the ability to say what you think, but not having to present empirical data to back it up.
I think he's also missing the positive factors. The divorce rate has been coming down for some time, his own graphs are starting to show a mild decrease in out of wedlock birth. There's other data showing the showing a decline in abortions in the US, at least. The family is trying to make comeback. Just leave LGBT people alone and let them get married. It won't cause the positive trends to reverse. Of course, there are negative statistics to cite but why must we always dwell on the negative and claim civilization is going to collapse just because the LGBT ask for something?
claim civilization is going to collapse just because the LGBT ask for something?
I'm a man.
Are you a L a G a B or a T?
I'm a man.
This is the internet...we'll have to take your word for it.
This is the internet...we'll have to take your word for it.
The word of a man values more than all your laws.
It might be right that the sexual revolution can be tied to the world wars, ...
From European perspective, there is an undeniable connection. Unpunished wild behaviour is rampant during wars. There was a considerable decadent fad between the wars. And now the morals of people have been permanently damaged. A case in point:
John Haldane also misses that homosexuality also exists in nature. Philosophers sit high in their ivory towers writing their papers on nature and whatnot but don't look outside the window to see what's really happening in nature. On what's "natural", as species pair-bonds for long periods of time if not for life, it seems unnatural to try to force humans to live alone and celibate. Before proclaiming what's natural and unnatural, first observe nature and what appears natural in the species.
Eating off the other male's offspring also exists in nature, therefore it's okay, right? And I'm sure there are homophobic species, so it's all natural. Seriously, you must be living in a very high ivory tower or in a sound-proof echo chamber if you think you are making any sort of sense.
There are species that mate for life and do not have marriage.
You can also argue that since marriage is a man made concept the benefits included are for human purposes. So the only thing to ask is, do gays need it for those purposes? What happens in nature is irrelevant.
Eating off the other male's offspring also exists in nature, therefore it's okay, right?
No pleasing some. First you claim directly and indirectly homosexuality is unnatural and this is your retort to the response it isn't.
Treating nature as a religion or behavioural guide is unnatural and misguided. Those who do pick extremely selective lessons from it. Nature doesn't treat nature as a religion, why should we?
Treating nature as a religion or behavioural guide is unnatural and misguided.
Treating nature as a religion would be most unkind to nature.
You can also argue that since marriage is a man made concept the benefits included are for human purposes. So the only thing to ask is, do gays need it for those purposes?
And how would you answer the question?
First you claim directly and indirectly homosexuality is unnatural and this is your retort to the response it isn't.
I may have said that homosexuality is unnatural - a year or two ago in another context. Here I am saying more - it's biologically unproductive, anti-social (in terms of society at large, not in terms of one's preferred subculture) and immoral.
These issues go under natural law, which is a philosophical concept, as in philosophy of nature. You probably confused this with law of nature as understood in materialism/physicalism/"naturalism".
Treating nature as a religion or behavioural guide is unnatural and misguided.
Treating morality as exclusive to religion makes you incapable of responding to any moral problem. You may want to reconsider.
it's biologically unproductive
There are at least two ways in which that is hypothetically untrue. The first and most obvious is that gay workers or fighters can give the community at large a survival advantage, the second is that a gay lack of reproduction might act as a natural defense against overpopulation. Besides which, how is forcing gay people to reproduce biologically productive? It'll just perpetuate gay genes.
he first and most obvious is that gay workers or fighters can give the community at large a survival advantage, ....
You mean like worker ants or worker bees? Say it to a gay :)
Besides which, how is forcing gay people to reproduce biologically productive?
No human is forced to reproduce. Except maybe when you get raped or something. It's just that if it's not in your plans to found a family, then you have no reason to get married either. Gays don't have such plans by imposing non-reproductiveness on themselves.
You mean like worker ants or worker bees? Say it to a gay :)
Somewhat like that, yes. But an anthill is genetically one organism, not thousands.
It's just that if it's not in your plans to found a family, then you have no reason to get married either.
Isn't that the crux? If you can't found a gay family but you do want a family, you might try to act like a regular person to make it happen. Biting the bullet, so to speak.
Isn't that the crux? If you can't found a gay family but you do want a family, you might try to act like a regular person to make it happen. Biting the bullet, so to speak.
The crux is that if you are a rational human being, you either want a family or not. You cannot want a gay family or any other self-contradictory nonsense. If rationality matters, that is. Not to mention morality, which is by far a fuzzier concept than rationality to the LGBT(Q etc.) club.
It's easy for me to turn this around and say it's the concept of marriage that's flawed. Not who wants to do it.
It should be a graduated process distinguishing domestic partnerships from family units with consideration to time it the relationship. Too often couples are irresponsible, don't even know each other or have any reason to be together beyond feelings they don't understand. (I was going to get into why feelings equal bad decision making in a political thread tho.)
You can also argue that since marriage is a man made concept the benefits included are for human purposes. So the only thing to ask is, do gays need it for those purposes?
The human purpose is social control. To encourage marriage, the US and other nations gave certain protections to married couples. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States) gives a quick list of marriage protections/rights and responsibilities. Same sex couples were unable to marry, but the Right had to push the issue and make it doubly illegal. Then it turned out the rights and protections on that list made denying same-sex marriage illegal on constitutional grounds via the Equal Protection Clause of the American Constitution(somewhat paradoxically making constitutional amendments themselves unconstitutional)
It's not all that difficult. In the United States, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of race/ethnicity, religion and all other factors. Every time someone tries to prevent another group from having that equal protection religious and philosophical arguments were invoked and every time those arguments are gibberish with no legal merit. It's amazing that the same arguments against same-sex marriage were used against interracial marriage.
It's not all that difficult. In the United States, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of race/ethnicity, religion and all other factors. Every time someone tries to prevent another group from having that equal protection religious and philosophical arguments were invoked and every time those arguments are gibberish with no legal merit.
"...and all other factors" such as criminal behaviour? Your arguments have no religious, philosophical, legal, moral or factual merit, so let's try something you should be capable of. How about your first impressions on the Orlando incident? You know, impressions, feelings...
My arguments have nothing but factual merit. All the data suggests sexual orientation is determined before birth and the very brain structures of hetero and homosexuals are different. Ie, the structures involved in the hearing in gay men are more like that those of women than heterosexual men. here's a simple article even homophobes can understand (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080616-gay-brain.html) (with prejudice having been linked to lower intelligence in other articles...) I'm sorry that you can science don't get along on this. Neither do you and concepts such as equal protection get along. It's 100% factual according to the Supreme Court of the United States that denying same sex couples the right to marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the US constitution. Nothing I said is remotely counter-factual.
Philosophies are like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay philosophical arguments are irrelevant. Of course when one "philosophizes" about homosexuality being against nature, it runs against what research has shown - that homosexuality is natural in humans. You can philosophize all day about this or any other subject and be shown to be one hundred percent wrong by somebody just looking out the window.
Moral merit. Whose morality do we impose on everyone else? Who are you to say that it's immoral for two consenting adults of the same sex to settle into a marriage? They're not hurting anybody. There's more than enough breeding pairs that society won't collapse (if anything it might collapse under the weight of all this breeding. Ultimately the planet can only support so many people...) In fact it seems immoral to force gay people to either live alone or marry someone of the opposite sex, an arrangement that will make both the man and woman unhappy. Fortunately, in the US we have a means of preventing anyone's excuse for morality from becoming the force of all by subjecting it to constitutional checks in the lower courts and the Supreme Court. Before you or Belfrager say it, of course things like theft and murder are immoral and are justly illegal because they negatively impact another people. Gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone else, so why would it be immoral? Because the Buy-bull says so? That's not morality.
And yet you seem to think you and Belfrager's arguments have "religious, philosophical, legal, moral or factual merit?" somehow? All you want to do is impose your version religion, morality and philosophy on everyone else. It ain't gonna happen.
How about your first impressions on the Orlando incident? You know, impressions, feelings...
Shock and outrage, of course. Then there's the question about why he did it. His father reported he was that angry at seeing two men kissing. Then it turned out he was a regular at the bar and might have been gay himself (recall in the gun control thread I noted most mass killings are not random and there's a reason people like this choose their specific areas to target. Perhaps he was driven mad by a poisonous combination of religious teaching and his self-hatred for having homosexual leanings. Of course, there's even the issue of how was he able to get the gun having been on the FBI's terror watch list for sometime. (NRA nutters, so much for "Obummer" taking away your guns, huh? BTW, thanks fucktards for helping make this happen by making it so easy for him to get the gun. What's wrong with you people? )
Philosophies are like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay philosophical arguments are irrelevant.
Would you say the same about whatever you call "data"? Like, "Data is like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay data is irrelevant." How would this work?
Moral merit. Whose morality do we impose on everyone else? Who are you to say that it's immoral for two consenting adults of the same sex to settle into a marriage?
If you were consistent, you would say the same about your "data". "Whose data do we impose on everyone else?" But you can't, because you have no data.
All the data suggests sexual orientation is determined before birth and the very brain structures of hetero and homosexuals are different.
If the data suggested this, it would be very bad for your cause, because if the data suggested this, the data would also suggest that pedophiles become pedophiles in the womb and so do mass murderers and all the other pervs and wackos. So, feel free to maintain that data suggests this.
In real life, kids are born with no idea about sex. They develop their attitude to sex as they grow up, taking what society teaches about it and mixing it with how they like what's being taught. So the crux is not what they are in the womb, but what is taught to them as they grow up.
Swedish gay lobby RFSL has figured correctly that they must start their brainwashing as early as possible. See, they don't rely on "all data suggests"; they actually go out to smear kindergarten children with "family models" because real-life data suggests that this you must do to get more people on your side.
In real life, there's a difference between
is and
should, and data suggests that knowing this distinction defines a human being. Whereas lack of discrimination on this point makes people do weird things, such as say that gay marriage is somehow marriage or that poo is pretty or that usury is a public service and murder is justice.
Actual humans may feel an urge to do this or that, but they can restrain themselves. Those who cannot restrain themselves, those who whine that they were born with those urges and that they have the right to display it, those are, in a normal society, determined clinically subhuman and put away in order to keep the society more or less normal.
It's 100% factual according to the Supreme Court of the United States that denying same sex couples the right to marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the US constitution. Nothing I said is remotely counter-factual.
So you agree with Oakdale that U.S. Constitution makes U.S. citizens 100% free (totally different from the rest of the world where everybody is in government-imposed slavery and darkness) and with SF that having whatever gun is a God-given right (totally different from the rest of the world where everybody is defenceless against police and neighbours). I hear you :)
How about your first impressions on the Orlando incident? You know, impressions, feelings...
Shock and outrage, of course. Then there's the question about why he did it. His father reported he was that angry at seeing two men kissing. Then it turned out he was a regular at the bar and might have been gay himself (recall in the gun control thread I noted most mass killings are not random and there's a reason people like this choose their specific areas to target. Perhaps he was driven mad by a poisonous combination of religious teaching and his self-hatred for having homosexual leanings. Of course, there's even the issue of how was he able to get the gun having been on the FBI's terror watch list for sometime. (NRA nutters, so much for "Obummer" taking away your guns, huh? BTW, thanks fucktards for helping make this happen by making it so easy for him to get the gun. What's wrong with you people? )
Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Even though it's just a mess, data without any analysis. For example, wouldn't a married man visiting gay bars be more like bisexual, not a gay? But you never were any good at definitions. Because solid definitions would compel you to do logical analysis and that would be a step away from emotions...
For example, wouldn't a married man visiting gay bars be more like bisexual, not a gay?
"homosexual leanings" includes that possibility, genius. Human sexuality is on a continuum first identified by Alfred Kinsey.
(https://becausewearediverse.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/kinseyscale.png?w=682)
He was somewhere on this continuum rating a number other than zero couldn't deal with it. That's why he choose what was possibly his favorite nightclub to perform his terrorist act in the name of ISIS.
Would you say the same about whatever you call "data"? Like, "Data is like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay data is irrelevant."
Except there is no anti-gay 'data' that can can withstand repeated testing, having not been arrived at empirically. Hence there's bullshit philosophies about "nature" that nature itself seems to disagree with.
Those who cannot restrain themselves, those who whine that they were born with those urges and that they have the right to display it, those are, in a normal society, determined clinically subhuman and put away in order to keep the society more or less normal.
Gay people are clinically subhuman, as if there's any such clinical definition? I'll let you hang yourself with your own rope on this on.
For example, wouldn't a married man visiting gay bars be more like bisexual, not a gay?
"homosexual leanings" includes that possibility, genius.
My point is not whether he had this or that leaning. My point is how you determine the morality of the leanings. He evidently had, on some continuum, a hostage-taking trigger-happy mass-murdering leaning. So, what do you say about it? These leanings exist in nature, therefore it's all good and the Constitution lets you have it, right?
Human sexuality is on a continuum first identified by Alfred Kinsey.
Looks like a philosophical presupposition, something you would maybe call a hypothesis - it's not data. From my point of view, philosophical presuppositions are inevitable. From your point of view your opponents are guilty of them while you are incapable of noticing your own presuppositions.
Would you say the same about whatever you call "data"? Like, "Data is like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay data is irrelevant."
Except there is no anti-gay 'data' that can can withstand repeated testing, having not been arrived at empirically. Hence there's bullshit philosophies about "nature" that nature itself seems to disagree with.
And surely you have the data to back it up. Like, a bullet-proof study that shows that pedophilia cannot be found in foetus's brain, while gayness is all there.
Gay people are clinically subhuman, as if there's any such clinical definition? I'll let you hang yourself with your own rope on this on.
Apparently you didn't notice when homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric illnesses when things like depression and ADHD got added. Yes, there used to be such a clinical definition. The point is, in what sense is the current definition better? In what way are gays better served by taking them off the list and in what way are the depressed better served by having them on the list? As a minimum, you should acknowledge that the list is not final, so perhaps you understand that my point is not what is on or off the list, but what are your criteria for putting things on the list and taking things away from there. I guess you have none.
This thread, although not new, needs a baptism.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHaZ0rxdxnI[/video]
Looks like a philosophical presupposition, something you would maybe call a hypothesis - it's not data
It was arrived at by interviewing subjects about their sexual history, so it is flawed in that regard. But it's possible to observe people's feelings, so you have to ask them. That said, a sexuality spectrum like this is damn near common sense among people that actually get out of the house and talk to people. This is why millennials are increasingly rejecting traditional labels.
Yes, there used to be such a clinical definition.
You were trying to define homosexuality as clinically subhuman. This was never the case. However, from the dawn of psychology it was questionable if homosexuality should be described as a mental illness.
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites//rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Even within medicine and psychiatry, however, homosexuality was not universally viewed as a pathology. Richard von Krafft-Ebing described it as a degenerative sickness in his Psychopathia Sexualis, but Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis both adopted more accepting stances. Early in the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral, that it was not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society (Robinson, 1976).
However, some later psychoanalysts said some gibberish about it resulting from poor family relationships and whatnot. Evidently it didn't occur to those biased "researchers" that they switched the cause and effect, that homophobia among some family members is what caused poor family relationship in the first place.
Biases in psychoanalysis
Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Instead, they were based on analysts' clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.
This procedure compromises the validity of the psychoanalytic conclusions in at least two important ways. First, the analyst's theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are likely to bias her or his observations. To avoid such bias, scientists take great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular research participant will respond. An example is the "double blind" procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures have not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality.
A second problem with psychoanalytic studies is that they have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care – in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. Patients, however, cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men and lesbians.
The removal from the list of mental disorders follows the same pattern of homophobes causing the very thing they were trying avoid, even in 1973.
Removal from the DSM
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.
Just as people trying to prevent same-sex marriage caused it's legalization by forcing the issue, old-fashioned psychoanalysts forced the issue and caused the vote resulting in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM. If you read the article, you'll note it was considered a mental illness largely as result of religious pressure in the first place, not as a result of any kind of empirical testing.
Here's little on brain structure.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
..
First they used MRI scans to find out the overall volume and shapes of brains in a group of 90 volunteers consisting of 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals of each gender.
The results showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger – and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.
The team next used PET scans to measure blood flow to the amygdala, part of the brain that governs fear and aggression. The images revealed how the amygdala connected to other parts of the brain, giving clues to how this might influence behaviour.
The article goes on to note that's it's not clear why this is the case, whether it's genetic or the result of hormone exposure in the womb. In either case, LGBT people are not hurting anybody and the legalization of their marriage is certainly not going to suddenly cause the downfall of society (for Belfrager, there are more than enough breeding pairs to keep society going...)
Biases in psychoanalysis […]
Is there anyone here that ever thought psychoanalysis was some kind of science? :)
The DSM is primarily used to
feed insurance companies…
BTW: I still say bake your own cake! :)
Biases in psychoanalysis […]
Is there anyone here that ever thought psychoanalysis was some kind of science? :)
The DSM is primarily used to feed insurance companies…
BTW: I still say bake your own cake! :)
Biases in psychoanalysis […]
Is there anyone here that ever thought psychoanalysis was some kind of science? :)
The DSM is primarily used to feed insurance companies…
BTW: I still say bake your own cake! :)
it was the basis of getting some kind of understanding of mental illness, as opposed to thinking it"s demons or whatever. But you're right in that particular branch of of psychology isn't really science at least by any modern standards (perhaps that's why the holdouts in removing homosexuality from the dsm tended to be psychoanalysts...) The point was that from the get go of psychology the leading psychologists knew homosexuality alone wasn't a mental illness.
Of course, neuroscience has since shown differences in homosexual and hetrosexual brains that can't be explained by anything other than pre-natal factors. Since LGBT aren"t hurting anyone (unlike the other groups mentioned in this thread) it seems unreasonable to deny them the same rights as other citizens. Allowing them to marry and passing laws against them is even conservative along small government lines (as oppossed to religious conservative..)
Sorry if there are even more typoes in this post from my phone, which doesn't even seem to be autocorrecting for me.
Sorry if there are even more typoes in this post from my phone, which doesn't even seem to be autocorrecting for me.
typos :D
Human sexuality is on a continuum
That table doesn't represents any continuum, it's merely a sub division of anomalies made with tendentious objectives.
I wonder from where comes the money that keeps on running all the current pro homosexual propaganda and the attack against Family that we are assisting at the western world.
Only very naive people thinks that this has anything to do with rights or that it appeared from spontaneous way. There's an agenda, there's a strategy, there's media control, there's public opinion makers, there's politicians and there's endless resources to keep everything in practice.
A gigantic experiment on social engineering is being made. By whom and what for, are the only questions that matters.
I wonder from where comes the money that keeps on running all the current pro homosexual propaganda and the attack against Family that we are assisting at the western world.
The same primitive us versus them mentality as American Republicans. Nobody is attacking the family. If anything the LGBT is affirming the family and marriage by seeking to form them.
Only very naive people thinks that this has anything to do with rights or that it appeared from spontaneous way.
[/quote] In America it's assumed you have rights by default, as long as you're not harming others. All the constitution does in this regard is prevent the government from taking them away. The Federal constitution has what's referred to as the "Supremacy Clause" to ensure the states and lower levels of government don't violate the rights codified and affirmed in the constitution.
From the Declaration of Independence, this concept was made clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Yes, it's self-event that the government doesn't actually grant rights, but it can protect them via a constitution. The flip side and would-be dictators can try to take them away. What happened in the case of same-sex marriage, of course, is that various states were found to be in violation of the "equal protection clause" of the Federal constitution. To understand why, you'd need to read up on the legalities of marriage in the United States and I remind you it's not a strictly religious institution and gibberish about any couple's ability to reproduce never factored into it.
there's politicians and there's endless resources to keep everything in practice.
The politicians and resources behind the state constitutional amendments to prevent same-sex couples from getting married greatly exceeded those of the opposite side. You must know, this right? Millions of dollars flowed from Mormon Utah to California to get their amendment passed, Again, though, it was self-evident that everyone gets equal protection under the law and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
Only very naive people thinks that this has anything to do with rights or that it appeared from spontaneous way. There's an agenda, there's a strategy, there's media control, there's public opinion makers, there's politicians and there's endless resources to keep everything in practice.
That's one scenario, the great collusion. The other is that, after actually getting to know those terrifying gayoids amongst them, people realise that there are scarier things on the planet, and move on to be terrified by those instead. Of course the first scenario is so much more convincing.
If anything the LGBT is affirming the family and marriage by seeking to form them.
Witch is exactly the same thing to say that thieves are just redefining the concept of property.
As for all the rest, I have to remember you midnight that you are just a small wheel of the mechanism I've denounced. Small but noisy, that I'll agree. At Animal Farm, you would be part of the ducks.
As for all the rest, I have to remember you midnight that you are just a small wheel of the mechanism I've denounced.
Oh please. You've jumped the shark by bringing in the old tin-foil hat "gay agenda" conspiracy theory. The 911 conspiracy theories pretty much make more sense than this.
Oh please. You've jumped the shark by bringing in the old tin-foil hat "gay agenda" conspiracy theory. The 911 conspiracy theories pretty much make more sense than this.
Sorry, but you lost all credibility after you failed to deal with the fact that gay agenda is not a theory where we live. It's a practical everyday experience. We see them brainwashing kindergarten children and the news are reporting this activity (http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=4416&artikel=6438530) as usual. That's not theory.
Also, it's utterly contemptible how you say you are on the side of common sense while not a single thing you say makes any sense, common or otherwise. For example, you say gays and heteros are distinguishable before birth. Okay. So are those who have progeria and those who don't. Does this mean that those who have progeria are perfectly normal, as good as any other?
You have failed to address these and other points, evidently fully aware that you are doing that. As long as you are only interested in talking past the point, you are not worthy further comment.
You've jumped the shark by bringing in the old tin-foil hat "gay agenda" conspiracy theory.
What I said and thought it to be clear is that there's much more going by than some homo-bi-trans-whatever activist lunatics looking for their "ten minutes of fame", which would be the best I could classify your arguments.
I said
There's an agenda, there's a strategy, there's media control, there's public opinion makers, there's politicians and there's endless resources to keep everything in practice.
A gigantic experiment on social engineering is being made. By whom and what for, are the only questions that matters.You didn't answer my questions, nor could you since you are not a strategist but a mere propagandist repeating endlessly an empty mantra following the manipulation basics - repeating lies times over times will turn them truths.
This social engineering large scale operation aims to destroy society's basis and (through the adoption of children by homosexuals) the very fundamentals of human dignity and nature. This is the real f** problem.
Sorry, but you lost all credibility after you failed to deal with the fact that gay agenda is not a theory where we live.
It's not a real theory. It's a tinfoil hate conspiracy theory not much better than the "theory" that aliens built Stonehenge or the Pyramids and the government is covering it up. The only "agenda" was to secure equal protection under the law, which the constitution requires anyway. Do you guys understand it's you that lost credibility by even bringing this gibberish up.
Oh wait. I double checked and the conspiracy is that aliens want to exterminate humanity and use the Earth for their own purposes by making the whole population homosexual. People that are gay now are somehow more susceptible to the gay radiation (ragayiation?) that the aliens have been bombarding the Earth with, but as more time passes more and more people will have their genes altered to turn gay until all of humanity is. If I remember right, the regayiation is being beamed from a gay nightclub just on the other side of Uranus.
It's not a real theory. It's a tinfoil hate conspiracy theory not much better than the "theory" that aliens built Stonehenge or the Pyramids and the government is covering it up.
It's quite sad how you have replaced rational argument with mere insults. But insults have no effect against facts. The facts of gay agenda in action have been pointed out to you.
It's much more sensible to discuss this subject with Frenzie or jax, because with them we at least agree with the facts on the ground, even though interpretation of the facts is another matter. Don't you think it significant that they are not disputing the facts of gay agenda that I and Belfrager have pointed out? The simple reason is that the facts are indisputable, in plain sight in our schools and even homes.
As I said, LGBT lobby (or gay agenda) may differ from place to place. I can't say how it is in the North or across the pond. Around here, I can say that the religious movements have been mostly harmless to the LGBT people, and that those "rights" have been legally granted for a good time. However, a bunch of religious lawmakers (of the "right" kind), although talking gibberish some times, are thankfully preventing "heteros" of being ashamed to be "heteros", and are preventing people that are afraid of homosexuals (is that what's called "homophobia"?) to be treated as criminals. That gay agenda is quite active these days.
It's quite sad how you have replaced rational argument with mere insults.
Blather about some nefarious gay agenda is not a rational argument. It's jackass paranoid tinfoil hat stuff that deserves no respect and gets what it does deserve.
Look at the post just before you, raccoon. Gay agenda is live and well all over the world. Only the wilfully blind won't see it.
Gay agenda is live and well all over the world.
And billions spent with it. Who pays and in exchange for what?
There are no such thing as free lunch.
The lizard people have deep pockets.
Gay people are particularly at risk from violence and discrimination worldwide so a little lizard protection goes a long way.
And sure, now we have neo-nazis and unreformed racists, you know the ones who just say it as it is, proclaiming gay rights. Clearly Muslims are on the same path (http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/17/on-orlando-homophobia-and-islam-finding-myself-through-my-gay-muslim-brother/) as well. The Gay Lizard alliance is taking over the world, except, perhaps, this forum.
The radical queer Left weren't even necessarily the ones pushing for marriage. Some on the Radical Queer Left Still Think Gay Marriage Is Bad for the LGBTQ Community [/quote]
(https://www.vice.com/read/some-on-the-radical-queer-left-still-think-gay-marriage-is-bad-for-the-lgbtq-community)
And billions spent with it. Who pays and in exchange for what?
This is easy. The The Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/) and similar groups pay through member donations in exchange for equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the constitution. I'll be surprised to find European constitutions not having similar provisions. There, I've spilled the beans on the "gay agenda." Also we'd like to not be discriminated against at work. But the type of conspiracy you guys are talking about mights as while have been about Jax's lizard people for it's paranoid nuttiness.
I'll be surprised to find European constitutions not having similar provisions.
That would be one of the defining principles of a rechtsstaat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat).
As I said, LGBT lobby (or gay agenda) may differ from place to place.
http://qz.com/438786/america-take-it-from-a-country-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-celebrate-now-then-get-back-to-work/ (http://qz.com/438786/america-take-it-from-a-country-where-gay-marriage-is-legal-celebrate-now-then-get-back-to-work/)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Gay_March_celebrating_2005_Pride_Day_and_Same-Sex_Marriage_Law_in_Spain.jpg/170px-Gay_March_celebrating_2005_Pride_Day_and_Same-Sex_Marriage_Law_in_Spain.jpg)
Go Spain!
The Gay Lizard alliance
I'm sorry. Google didn't help me. What are you talking about?
Google me this.
Icke.
Jones.
Homosexual agenda.
Combine.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Enjoy.
Very well.
A video of Alex Jones explaining that it's to destroy marriage in order to make the state God and evidently the real conspirators are pedophiles (https://youtu.be/bKR_UV8cxpQ) :faint: These folks are coo-coo for Coco Puffs. All my life, I've had to hear about the "homosexual agenda" and yet no one articulated to me in a clear way what's supposed to be, beyond equal rights to marriage, housing, and work. Following Jax's google suggestions, I've found lunatic conspiracy theories about secret societies, a couple strawman gay activities that say marriage should be dissolved completely (which few in the LGBT community would abide) and whatnot. Alex Jones's delusions seem to be the rule, rather than the exception, to what anti-gay people believe about the "homosexual agenda." In uni, my friends and I would joke with each other about if we go our copy of the agenda. That's right, LGBT actually laugh at the very concept of a broad, pernicious homosexual agenda.
I'll be surprised to find European constitutions not having similar provisions.
That would be one of the defining principles of a rechtsstaat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat).
Notice what he said just before, "...equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the constitution." He thinks the law and constitution provide equal
protection (full stop), instead of equal
protection where appropriate and punishment where appropriate.
There's the same trouble with Oakdale and SF. They think the law only provides rights. In reality, the law provides both benefits and sanctions and, in a rechtsstaat, everybody is equal before the law, whatever the law may provide for the occasion.
When you are a criminal, you don't get the same benefits, protection, or rights as non-criminals do. That's common sense. Having this common sense does not prevent the country from being a rechtsstaat.
Homosexuality was criminal fairly recently. There's no contradiction between having homosexuality criminalised and being a rechtsstaat at the same time. It's just that it's unfashionable right now to have homosexuality criminalised. I'd say that it's unbecoming of a rechtsstaat to make laws that only appeal to a fashion.
It's just that it's unfashionable right now to have homosexuality criminalised. I'd say that it's unbecoming of a rechtsstaat to make laws that only appeal to a fashion.
Short of an overthrow of this type of government, that's not gonna happen. Once the Supreme Court rules, it's over. For instance, with the Orlando shootings, there's a renewed push for gun control/banning certain types of guns. The Supreme Court already ruled, so this is unlikely to succeed as well on constitutional grounds. You see, the constitution has provisions to prevent what's "fashionable" from becoming law. This in a large part to prevent a totalitarian passion of the people to drag us into dictatorship.
There's no contradiction between having homosexuality criminalised and being a rechtsstaat at the same time.
The reason you're saying this is because some part of you knows that re-criminalizing homosexuality is Obrigkeitsstaat in European terms and statist (in more common terms Big Government in the US.) Making something illegal just because it offends somebody's religion is 100 percent Grade A big government and is direct contradiction to rechtsstaat. The American religious conservatives make the same mistake you do, claiming limited government but trying to outlaw every arbitrary thing that offends them and not understanding that if they manage to succeed they're giving the state more power (this is a long standing contradiction I've noted in the GOP.)
I revisited the article on rechtsstaat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat#Principles_of_the_Rechtsstaat) and noted this:
Valery Zorkin, President of the Constitutional Court of Russia, wrote in 2003:
Becoming a legal state has long been our ultimate goal, and we have certainly made serious progress in this direction over the past several years. However, no one can say now that we have reached this destination. Such a legal state simply cannot exist without a lawful and just society. Here, as in no other sphere of our life, the state reflects the level of maturity reached by society.
In way does trying to deny a certain group constitutional rights indicate a just society? I'm compelled to reiterate that the LGBT are not harming anyone, so it's been found in court that the state has no compelling interest in harassing and arresting LGBT people nor preventing their marriage. That being the case, exposing any harmless group of people to this treatment does not further the cause of a just society.
Notice what he said just before, "...equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the constitution." He thinks the law and constitution provide equal protection (full stop), instead of equal protection where appropriate and punishment where appropriate.
The primary purpose of the constitution is to limit the power of the state and to prevent power abuse by the government. In other words, it does indeed grant citizens their fundamental rights. What
@midnight raccoon said merely means that all shall be treated the same in equal circumstances.
Homosexuality was criminal fairly recently. There's no contradiction between having homosexuality criminalised and being a rechtsstaat at the same time. It's just that it's unfashionable right now to have homosexuality criminalised. I'd say that it's unbecoming of a rechtsstaat to make laws that only appeal to a fashion.
Indeed, which is why a rechtsstaat shouldn't legislate against the scapegoated minority du jour, like Protestants, Jews, Muslims, witches or homosexuals. Except implicitly of course, insofar as such minority groups hold principles, like wishing to interfere with due process of law, that are incompatible with the rechtsstaat itself.
Sometimes it's all about where one lives.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/being-gay-in-the-islamic-state-men-reveal-chilling-truth-about-homosexuality-under-isis-10470894.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/being-gay-in-the-islamic-state-men-reveal-chilling-truth-about-homosexuality-under-isis-10470894.html)
In way does trying to deny a certain group constitutional rights indicate a just society?
What if the certain group happens to be criminals? Don't they belong to jail or under some other custody or supervision?
What @midnight raccoon (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=profile;u=9155) said merely means that all shall be treated the same in equal circumstances.
This is an overgenerous reading of him. He explicitly says (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=955.msg62732#msg62732) "In the United States, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of race/ethnicity, religion and all other factors." In particular, notice the second "all" - no qualification whatsoever. He displays no understanding that among "all other factors" there could be something like a criminal record which would reduce the citizen's liberties or a severe handicap which would call for special arrangements in order for the citizen to benefit from any said liberty. And he displays no understanding that law is not providing just protections and rights and benefits, but also restrictions, sanctions, and punishments.
Indeed, which is why a rechtsstaat shouldn't legislate against the scapegoated minority du jour, like Protestants, Jews, Muslims, witches or homosexuals. Except implicitly of course, insofar as such minority groups hold principles, like wishing to interfere with due process of law, that are incompatible with the rechtsstaat itself.
Agreed. And it so happens that homosexuals are interfering with due process of law, if human law is to reflect natural law, i.e. natural order of things. In terms of social order, if continuity of society matters (which in biological terms means continuity of species), and marriage is the institution that signifies that society values its own continuity, then homosexuality cannot be "equal" on this point.
Those who say marriage can and should be "equal" for homosexuals are also saying (implicitly) that human law does not derive its meaning from the natural order of things nor should it try to. They are implicitly saying that marriage signifies only an automatic right to inherit the stuff of a dead person who is not related to you and that everybody without any distinction should have this right. They have no way of separating from this mess fictive marriage, incest, pedophiles, polyamory, etc. Frankly, I have not seen any attempt to separate those, so this is a given.
He displays no understanding that among "all other factors" there could be something like a criminal record
You can't be serious. The data strongly suggested people are born gay, just as they are born into a race/ethnicity. This is unlike criminals who choose to commit their crimes and thus become incarcerated.
They have no way of separating from this mess fictive marriage, incest, pedophiles, polyamory, etc. Frankly, I have not seen any attempt to separate those, so this is a given.
Are we seriously back to this rubbish, lumping LGBT people in pedophiles and the like? This is filth, pure and simpIe. I felt repetitive explaining to you what the differences multiple times.
He displays no understanding that among "all other factors" there could be something like a criminal record which would reduce the citizen's liberties or a severe handicap which would call for special arrangements in order for the citizen to benefit from any said liberty.
In the US, if you go to prison you might have some rights reduced. You can't vote for a while (Not sure what the exact laws are) and you can't legally purchase a gun. But you still have 14 amendment rights, regardless.
Here is the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution in it's entirety, with section1 being the relevant part. Since you're so easily confused, I bolded it for you.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
Get it? A criminal loses rights, but neither the Federal nor state government may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" If you do commit a crime, you can't be deprived of your liberty without due process of the law. If one is accused of a crime while in prison, the amendment still applies. Same-sex couples are not committing a crime and thus can't be deprived of any of those.
If you still don't get it, there are plenty of legal treatise to further explain it.
You can't be serious. The data strongly suggested people are born gay, just as they are born into a race/ethnicity. This is unlike criminals who choose to commit their crimes and thus become incarcerated.
The data strongly suggests that (certain types of) criminals are born to be criminals. There's a fascinating line of research in this area, if you are interested http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/02/criminal-mind.aspx
I don't dispute the data. I dispute your jump from "they were born this way" to "this is the right way to be". The data may be right, tentatively, but you are definitely not in your right mind.
Did you miss this part of the article:
If we know that certain brain characteristics may predispose some people to violence, what can we do about it? Intervene — and the earlier, the better, says Raine, author of "The Anatomy of Violence" (Random House, 2013).
In one intervention, for example, he and colleagues found that 3-year-olds who had been assigned to an enrichment program focused on nutrition, exercise and cognitive skills had better brain functioning at age 11 and a 34 percent reduction in criminal activity at age 23 when compared with a control group that did not receive the intervention (American Journal of Psychiatry, 2003). Intervening even earlier, David Olds, PhD, of the University of Colorado, has found that pregnant low-income mothers who were visited regularly by home nurses who talked to them about health, education and parenting were less likely to have children who were arrested by age 15 (Infant Mental Health Journal, 2006).
Even simple interventions may make a difference. In one preliminary study, prisoners assigned to a 10-week yoga class improved their impulse control (Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2013). In an earlier randomized-controlled trial of British prisoners, those who received vitamin, mineral and essential fatty acid supplements committed an average of 26.3 percent fewer offenses than those who had received the placebo. They also showed a reduction in offenses of more than 35 percent, while the placebo-taking prisoners' records remained stable (British Journal of Psychiatry, 2002). A study in the Netherlands replicated the effect, and now Raine is testing a similar intervention for children.
You're still attempting to lump LGBT with criminal types and it doesn't work. You cannot be deprived of your constitutional rights without due process of law, or be denied equal protection under the law. A criminal with an abnormal amygdala robbed somebody, maybe committed a murder. A same-sex couple did neither. How is this difficult to understand? Criminalizing homosexuality was obrigkeitsstaat, arbitrary use of state power, just because the LGBT offend some people's religious views or maybe offended a non-religious person's "yuck" factor. The concept of rechtsstaat prohibits this.
There's the same trouble with Oakdale and SF. They think the law only provides rights.
(Sorry, to be so late in chiming-in… :) ) Your ignorance,
ersi, leads you to say silly things!
While it's true that the U.S. constitution seldom makes demands upon its citizens it
is basically a proscriptive list that makes up the Bill of Rights [Thou shalt nots…]; the body of the original document is mostly a
prescriptive list of what the federal government is allowed to do, and how [with some Thou shalt nots included…].
State and local law are subsumed, but only to an extent — there is (or was!) the 10th amendment… But most folks don't like that
one any more. :)
You have a "Continental" view of law: A codification of everything. As you should know, the Anglo-Saxon tradition is different. That you don't understand it or -even insofar as you do- you reject it is to be expected: You Europeans (and neighbors) have always been subjects. You know no better. Going beyond such is too much to ask of you.
Sang is a slightly different case: He was
schooled to reject community and tradition. (Our colleges —specially, our "social" studies departments — have mostly followed the Frankfurt School…) And his proclivities (…or, encouraged childhood perversions, which he maintains…) leave him in an untenable position: Either he's a pervert or most of society is perverse.
Of course, his choice is simple: He does what he does because it is "natural" - for him. And anyone who has a problem with that is a big, bad meanie!
Or he himself has a serious problem…
Guess which he'll choose? :)
(He doesn't care. He just wants to do what he wants to do. Is that not the definition of a hedonist? :) )
In reality, the law provides both benefits and sanctions and, in a rechtsstaat, everybody is equal before the law, whatever the law may provide for the occasion.
Kant was full of cant…
BTW: When you say that the "data" support the proposition that people are
born "gay" you're being as silly as
Sanguinemoon: The little attempted science on such questions is woefully inadequate. (But syllogisms might not show it to be so… :) )
————————————————————————————————
Cute: Someone was attempting to post before me… Of course, I posted anyway; the "other" didn't… Wonder why? :)
He doesn't care. He just wants to do what he wants to do.
Such as going to see the new X-Men movie with my boyfriend.
State and local law are subsumed, but only to an extent -- there is (or was!) the 10th amendment... But most folks don't like that one any more.
The 10th amendment is fine. To put it more simply, state and local laws can't conflict with the constitution.
Yikes!
I lost a long post… (Not that I'd thought I'd engage you; you're impervious to argument.)
The constitution you refer to is a figment of the progressive mind. ("Penumbras?" Really?) Your idea of the 10th amendment is: There really are no states, and the constitution covers everything!
So, of course, you're "okay" with it: You think it null and void.
What does it matter? Well, you'll have to deal with the anti-constitutionalists — if you win…
BTW: When you say that the "data" support the proposition that people are born "gay"...
I don't say that. I merely don't care to dispute it. The reason is that whoever says that gays are born gay - and are therefore "natural" and must have all the rights - must provide the data that pedophiles are not born pedophile and provide the reasoning how pedophiles should not have all the rights.
But thanks for showing yet again how easily and thoroughly you misread me. Good to know that you have retained your old self. (Not that you ever had any other self.)
Did you miss this part of the article:
By linking to the article you were trying to make a point. Other points follow from the main point and you should answer them, if you care about rationality.
You're still attempting to lump LGBT with criminal types and it doesn't work.
Your own presuppositions lump them together. To keep them apart, you have to demonstrate by what characteristic you distinguish them. You have not made any attempt to separate LGBT from criminal types. Under your presuppositions, they belong together. If you don't want them to be together, you should provide characteristics that distinguish LGBT(Q etc.) orientation from e.g. pedophiles.
Obviously, such separation cannot be done, because you have already loudly proclaimed that sexual orientation is a continuum where everything is included, that it's predetermined in the brain. Moreover, you have linked to articles that identify sexual orientation as "other" i.e. open-ended whatever-goes. Too late to turn back now. You may try, if you want.
I don't lump together anything. I simply point out how one conclusion immediately leads to another and, if you don't like the other conclusion, you should do something about the first. If rationality matters, that is. To you it doesn't.
Actually it's you who lumps together so-called same-sex marriage with marriage, as if they were both marriage. This can only be done by resolute ignorance concerning what marriage is.
I don't say that. I merely don't care to dispute it. The reason is that whoever says that gays are born gay - and are therefore "natural" and must have all the rights - must provide the data that pedophiles are not born pedophile and provide the reasoning how pedophiles should not have all the rights.
Concepts like consent and harm to others have been mentioned many times. In fact I thought your argument hinged on harm to others? In any case, pedophiles have all the rights to be pedophiles. They just don't have the right to sexually abuse children. Is there any particular reason to suppose this is any different than any other person not being allowed to rape the people they're attracted to?
Concepts like consent and harm to others have been mentioned many times.
This makes the distinction between marriage and criminal behaviour? Like, if two guys agree to have some sex and then one will eat the other, it's normal marriage? (I'm sure you know the real-life case. It was private and consensual, but still went to the courts for some reason that you might want to consider.)
You see, when you use concepts like consent and harm, you are failing to define marriage, because consent and harm have no necessary connection to marriage. I'm sure you are not saying "As long as it's consensual, it's marriage." You are merely saying "It's consensual, so there's no harm in it." I don't agree with the second statement either, but the more relevant point is that you are talking beside the point - you are not showing how same-sex marriage is marriage or why homosexuals should have a right to it.
In fact I thought your argument hinged on harm to others?
Not my argument for the definition of marriage. My argument for the definition of marriage has many corollaries, but it hinges on none of the corollaries. It hinges on the purpose of marriage, not on anything secondary or extraneous like avoiding harm. If the purpose were to avoid harm, then staying without marriage fulfils the purpose just fine, doesn't it?
In any case, pedophiles have all the rights to be pedophiles. They just don't have the right to sexually abuse children. Is there any particular reason to suppose this is any different than any other person not being allowed to rape the people they're attracted to?
We are in agreement again. In my view, homosexuals have all the rights to be homosexuals. They just have no business with marriage, adoption, and things like that. They belong to gay clubs - into gay clubs, not outside.
And criminals have all the rights to be criminals. Just that criminals belong behind bars.
They belong to gay clubs - into gay clubs, not outside.
Spoken like an Alabama State Representative.
Just that criminals belong behind bars.
That's subject to the same scrutiny...
Law and justice are separate concepts. And there's no justice in denying what the law provides. Not really saying anything tho, right? ;) Given your omni-opinion on this you'll have to pin down the definition of marriage by it's State definition not any philosophical ones. What marriage matters to you only matters so far as your right to impose your beliefs on me.
They belong to gay clubs - into gay clubs, not outside.
Spoken like an Alabama State Representative.
Is that a bad thing? I keep hearing good things about American democracy.
Law and justice are separate concepts. And there's no justice in denying what the law provides. Not really saying anything tho, right? ;)
Indeed, not saying anything to me. Do you mean it's unjust to deny what the law provides? I can't parse your statement. It has no evident connection to anything.
What marriage matters to you only matters so far as your right to impose your beliefs on me.
Doesn't the same apply to you equally? And if yes, and our beliefs are at odds, isn't there an objective standard to determine if either one is better in some way than the other?
It has no evident connection to anything.
A parody of you. ;)
Sexual preferences, aberrations or whatever don't grant any rights, no matter how much loud it's practitioners shouts, no matter how much propaganda is done, no matter how much activism useful idiots do.
Allowance for same sex "marriages" is not the statement of a right, it's simply the rotten odor of society's decrepitude. It stinks.
Next, it will be euthanasia.
(I'm sure you know the real-life case. It was private and consensual, but still went to the courts for some reason that you might want to consider.)
Not really. Are there reasons other than manslaughter?
Not my argument for the definition of marriage. My argument for the definition of marriage has many corollaries, but it hinges on none of the corollaries. It hinges on the purpose of marriage, not on anything secondary or extraneous like avoiding harm. If the purpose were to avoid harm, then staying without marriage fulfils the purpose just fine, doesn't it?
[…]
We are in agreement again. In my view, homosexuals have all the rights to be homosexuals. They just have no business with marriage, adoption, and things like that. They belong to gay clubs - into gay clubs, not outside.
The purpose of marriage is the opposite of avoiding harm, i.e., to improve the lives of the marital partners and the state of society at large. Reproduction is but one of the ways in which this can be achieved. The basic case for gay marriage is that it significantly improves the quality of some lives without harming anyone. In contrast, by keeping homosexuals from adopting you aren't improving the lives of some homosexuals while simultaneously making the lives of some children much, much worse by being left without adoptive parents. There's no upside to it.
(I'm sure you know the real-life case. It was private and consensual, but still went to the courts for some reason that you might want to consider.)
Not really.
Not familiar? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/world/german-man-arrested-in-a-case-of-homicide-and-cannibalism.html?pagewanted=print
Are there reasons other than manslaughter?
The point is that events are taken up for moral and legal evaluation absolutely apart from their being private or consensual. Privacy or consensuality is not an argument when asserting this or that right.
The reason for having moral and legal evaluation regardless of privacy and consensuality is to, first, enable assessment of motivation. You see, your motivation is absolutely your private thing. It is psychological, not material, so nobody really sees it. You may misreport it as you wish. But motivation is, for example, what makes the distinction between manslaughter and murder.
Second, it's to enable assessment of legal/moral truth. Witnesses may agree to (mis)represent certain things certain way, either of their own accord or by someone's blackmail. All this must be determinable, no? Therefore, consensuality is not an argument.
The basic case for gay marriage is that it significantly improves the quality of some lives without harming anyone.
Can you expand on "quality of life"? Homosexual lust is a rightful quality of life? Not even heterosexual lust is a right, mind you.
In contrast, by keeping homosexuals from adopting you aren't improving the lives of some homosexuals while simultaneously making the lives of some children much, much worse by being left without adoptive parents. There's no upside to it.
This can be true only when you disregard the moral implications, such as putting children in the midst of sexual themes long before the appropriate age. Biologically, children are fathered and born from mother. Any other "family model" raises the question of the child's origin for the child. This is not harmless.
There is a distinction between talking sex with an adult and talking sex with a child. In both cases, it's a touchy topic, but an adult should be able to handle touchy topics, whereas a child is probably gathering first impressions that will form the basis for life-long attitude. Such attitudes are most rightly first formed in interaction with parents. In case of lack of parents, with those who best approximate parents. Gay "family model" does not approximate that. This is a downside.
So, if this was the case for gay marriage, there was no case.
Can you expand on "quality of life"? Homosexual lust is a rightful quality of life? Not even heterosexual lust is a right, mind you.
What's there to expand? You're married, aren't you? Our quality of life improves through the strength of our relationships, both mentally and physically. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with lust, mind you. It just won't make for a lasting marriage and won't be anywhere close to being as beneficial to those involved because marriage is a life-long commitment.
So, if this was the case for gay marriage, there was no case.
So, to summarize the conclusion of your argument, a gay family is worse than an orphanage?
This can be true only when you disregard the moral implications, such as putting children in the midst of sexual themes long before the appropriate age.
What the hell are you talking about? Heterosexual couples have sex. Or are you silly enough to suggest that now the child is somehow damaged by knowing gay people exist? WTF? Seriously.
Any other "family model" raises the question of the child's origin for the child. This is not harmless.
A child adopted by a heterosexual couple might not know his "origins" , either. In fact, there are laws protecting the identity of the biological parents if they don't wish to be found.
What's there to expand? You're married, aren't you? Our quality of life improves through the strength of our relationships, both mentally and physically.
Lust is one thing, marriage is another thing.
You are not answering my questions. At least you should show how my questions are irrelevant. And then proceed to define marriage so that non-marriages are indeed excluded from that. As it is, in your terms, sleeping with a prostitute (of whatever orientation) seems to constitute marriage for you, particularly when it's regular.
Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with lust, mind you. It just won't make for a lasting marriage and won't be anywhere close to being as beneficial to those involved because marriage is a life-long commitment.
Pedophiles operate purely on lust. Is this simply not "anywhere close to as beneficial"? Try again, seriously.
What the hell are you talking about? Heterosexual couples have sex. Or are you silly enough to suggest that now the child is somehow damaged by knowing gay people exist? WTF? Seriously.
Hetereosexual couples have sex
and this is how children are born. Not so with gays. This is not the first time you display ignorance of this biological fact. Since you are the way you are with regard to simple biology, I won't even attempt to discuss with you the moral intricacies involved with children, parents, adopted children, substitute parents, etc.
by keeping homosexuals from adopting you aren't improving the lives of some homosexuals
What a stupidity. Being adopted it's a children's right. No adults, even less homosexuals, have any right to adopt.
No children deserves having a pair of homosexuals as father and mother.
Obviously. An animal cannot give consent to enter a legal contract and incest is child abuse.
Sorry, but how do you know a grown-up animal cannot give consent? Aren't you just being judgmental towards animals based on that they don't speak your language? Jimbro here thinks men should have a right to marry goats...
And incest is not necessarily child abuse. Children grow up to be of legal age in no-time. So, what's the basis of stopping them marrying their parents then?
You're using the wrong term here. Polyamory doesn't necessarily involve marriage. I think you mean polygamy.
You have evidently no idea what I meant, so let me make it clear. I meant polyamory. And I mean a lot of other things too, so as to get you around to define marriage.
And it most likely is unconstitutional since in the US it's usually practiced by cults and cultish subsets of the Mormonism where it isn't consensual.
By the same logic, same-sex marriage should be unconstitutional in America, because it's that gay cult practising it and nobody else.
Why is that you think I have answers for these ridiculous strawman situations?
You know what a strawman is? Strawman is addressing a misrepresentation of the view of your collocutor, not the actual view of your collocutor. You do that a lot, each and every time you say something about Christians. Christian view happens to align with the natural law view of marriage, but the natural law view is not specific to Christianity, but universal to every society in the world. That's the concept of nature that you have not yet addressed.
If those situations do come up, the courts will look at the facts of the cases and rule. In the meantime, they have nothing to do with two people of the same sex being in love.
Actually, there have been numerous cases both in the U.S. and the rest of the world where courts have taken a look at the facts and ruled against same-sex marriage. Yet you have a problem with those rulings. Then SCOTUS appears to have made same-sex marriage constitutional and suddenly you are okay with that. So the issue is not how courts rule. The issue is on how their rulings are justified.
Anybody with a clear mind saw immediately that the dilution of the definition of marriage inherent to the ruling of SCOTUS allowed polygamy and polyamory. The first cases are already in the news http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nathan-collier-montona-polygamy-marriage-scotus
Thus far, I'm noting a lack of an incestious couple or a polygamous relationship suing to get married.
It's because you are blind http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-love-german-high-court-takes-a-look-at-incest-a-540831.html
Happy now that the discussion has been reduced to dictionary definitions that we all know already?
That's just the English current definition. Look at the same source just ten years ago and you get different wordings. The question is not how your favorite dictionary does it, but how is it justified. Is it really getting to the essence of marriage so as to exclude non-marriages?
Earlier you said this.
And yet the definition of marriage has shifted numerous times from...
Let's suppose so. So, what is stopping the definition from shifting tomorrow? What if it shifts to your disadvantage? To have any meaningful discussion we need a non-arbitrary definition. You are not ready for this discussion.
I already spelled out the summarized moral argument in favor of gay marriage: it significantly improves quality of life for some people without harming anyone. That (and any other argument in favor) is almost completely unrelated to the argument against your "natural" objection, which is what I was talking about here.
My objection to this particular one was that it was not moral in the first place. I remember from an earlier debate with you that when we got around to defining morality, you took all morality out of it and then called it morality. So, I reject your "moral argument", because
- It's not a
moral argument. "Moral" implies that you judge things right or wrong (and in natural philosophy, you have to have a basis on which to determine such judgements, but we will never get that far in this discussion), but here you are not positively saying why gay marriage is right or wrong. You are saying it doesn't harm anyone (else). Many things don't harm anyone (else), such as picking your own nose, but this makes it neither right or
a right.
- It's not an argument
for gay marriage or any marriage for that matter. For example, picking your own nose may improve your quality of life in your own perception without harming anyone, but it doesn't mean that picking your own nose is marriage. Or, forgetting marriage, does it seem like a good argument for picking your own nose when you say "It improves my quality of life and does not harm you!"?
- It's not an
argument. An argument contains defined terms. You have failed to define quality of life.
This is bad enough. Answer these points and I may consider the rest of your post worth reading.
Edit: Except the following seems relevant.
Rights are a legal concept. In morality there is no such thing as rights, merely behavior we have reason to promote and behavior we have reason to condemn. Rights follow from that. For example, the right to freedom of religion follows from the strong reasons we have to promote an aversion to violence against those with a different outlook on the world.
Interesting theory. And can you spell out the reasons to promote aversion to violence against those with a different outlook on the world? Is it a moral reason (i.e. such violence is
wrong)? I haven't seen such moral judgements from you yet, much less the basis for such moral judgements. Thus far it seems like you avoid any concept of right and wrong in your concept of morality, which means that your morality cannot provide the basis for legal rights. So, what are those reasons you are talking about?
This is important because when I ask about an
argument for gay marriage and a
definition of marriage, I am asking at the same time for
reasons for them. Thus far I haven't seen any reasons on your part, which is why I say you have no argument and no definition. And, when I asked you for a definition of quality of life, in this context I am specifically asking for the kind of definition that would provide reasons to support gay marriage, and not picking your nose or whatever. Until then this discussion hasn't really started, because there's been no argument presented to me to respond to.
- It's not a moral argument. "Moral" implies that you judge things right or wrong (and in natural philosophy, you have to have a basis on which to determine such judgements, but we will never get that far in this discussion), but here you are not positively saying why gay marriage is right or wrong. You are saying it doesn't harm anyone (else). Many things don't harm anyone (else), such as picking your own nose, but this makes it neither right or a right.
And to me, your so-called "moral" arguments have no epistemological basis in reality. All that's real is our desires. But it makes no pragmatic difference whether you think morality is some kind of cosmic rule or not. The process of validly figuring out what is moral (i.e., what is behavior we generally have reason to promote) and what is immoral (i.e., what is behavior we generally have reason to shun) is pretty much the same regardless. It needs a solid epistemological basis lest you're mistaken about
how morality applies. For instance, if you want something to eat and you see a sandwich you might think you want that sandwich. But when you find out the sandwich is poisoned, it turns out you never actually wanted that sandwich. You were therefore mistaken about wanting the sandwich.
Or, forgetting marriage, does it seem like a good argument for picking your own nose when you say "It improves my quality of life and does not harm you!"?
Provided the actor is not mistaken about either of those statements, of course it's a good argument in favor of picking your nose. Paraphrasing your argument, you say that
even though nose picking improves quality of life without harming anyone, we must prohibit it. Which is patently ridiculous.
Any valid counter-argument must show how it doesn't improve quality of life or how it harms others. For example, the temporary satisfaction of nose picking might result in nose cancer in the long term (i.e., it doesn't improve quality of life) or it facilitates the spread of viruses (i.e., it does harm others). NB I just picked these examples out of my nose; they're not to be taken as my real opinion on the evils of nose picking.
- It's not an argument. An argument contains defined terms. You have failed to define quality of life.
Quality of life is defined as the state of feeling dissatisfied while being in constant misery and pain. :faint:
Interesting theory. And can you spell out the reasons to promote aversion to violence against those with a different outlook on the world? Is it a moral reason (i.e. such violence is wrong)? I haven't seen such moral judgements from you yet, much less the basis for such moral judgements. Thus far it seems like you avoid any concept of right and wrong in your concept of morality, which means that your morality cannot provide the basis for legal rights. So, what are those reasons you are talking about?
Living in a society where violence might occur more or less at random (e.g., in a non-rechtsstaat) objectively reduces well-being. Well-being stems from fulfillment of desires. Everything begins with our desires. Morality comes from the interplay between conflicting desires.
Sorry, but how do you know a grown-up animal cannot give consent? Aren't you just being judgmental towards animals based on that they don't speak your language? Jimbro here thinks men should have a right to marry goats...
And incest is not necessarily child abuse. Children grow up to be of legal age in no-time. So, what's the basis of stopping them marrying their parents then?
That's just about the most sensible thing you've said in this discussion recently. Indeed, a sexually mature animal might very well be able to give consent, so if there's something wrong with the practice it's quite likely that we should look for it elsewhere. Obvious concerns are disease (cf. promiscuous and anal sex in a pre-condom society) and social skills, suggesting we at least have mild reasons to condemn bestiality. Whether we have strong reasons is more questionable, but I haven't given it much thought.
Unabusive adult incest is primarily a victim of the strong reasons we have to shun (child) sexual abuse, although there is also the genetic concern. As I said above, we necessarily have to paint in broad strokes in morality. Even so, it's possible that this particular taboo is unwarranted.
Anybody with a clear mind saw immediately that the dilution of the definition of marriage inherent to the ruling of SCOTUS allowed polygamy and polyamory. The first cases are already in the news
I don't see the problem. However, arguably the advantages bestowed upon marriage should be given to
parents instead.
This is bad enough. Answer these points and I may consider the rest of your post worth reading.
But you can't positively answer way same-sex marriage is wrong. Because of some vague and strained"natural law" philosophy? I wonder if you explain how non-reproductive sex and unions between people are somehow "unnatural" considering they are often the fulfillment of human love and commitment, both of which are among the highest aspects of human nature. Bearing in mind this includes heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones, does this not strengthen the fabric of society rather then unraveling it? When a same sex couples says
I, Sam, take you, Alex, to be my [wife/husband],
I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health.
I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
Alex, take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
These are commitments to be encouraged, rather than discouraged and are well within "natural law."
@Frenzie
Thanks for trying, but I hope your bad week will be replaced with a better one soon.
And to me, your so-called "moral" arguments have no epistemological basis in reality.
This charge is utterly ludicrous because it applies to you, not to me. My definition of marriage is solidly connected to the biological fact that humans procreate heterosexually only. Is this not epistemological/empirical enough for you? Or else, what do you mean by "epistemological basis in reality"? I hesitate to ask this, because you have been dismal with definitions, yet you keep adding new undefined terms.
From the pro-gay camp there has been decided wilful ignorance of this biological fact. Thus same-sex marriage has no epistemological basis in reality, at least none such basis has been pointed out yet.
All that's real is our desires. But it makes no pragmatic difference whether you think morality is some kind of cosmic rule or not. The process of validly figuring out what is moral (i.e., what is behavior we generally have reason to promote) and what is immoral (i.e., what is behavior we generally have reason to shun) is pretty much the same regardless. It needs a solid epistemological basis lest you're mistaken about how morality applies. For instance, if you want something to eat and you see a sandwich you might think you want that sandwich. But when you find out the sandwich is poisoned, it turns out you never actually wanted that sandwich. You were therefore mistaken about wanting the sandwich.
Okay. And how does this sandwich argument get you same-sex marriage? And I mean specifically same-sex marriage, not a sandwich, picking your nose, or Nazi propaganda.
Provided the actor is not mistaken about either of those statements, of course it's a good argument in favor of picking your nose. Paraphrasing your argument, you say that even though nose picking improves quality of life without harming anyone, we must prohibit it. Which is patently ridiculous.
My humble point is that picking your nose is neither marriage or a right. You seem to be saying it is both. I just charged you with these points, and you are not denying it. Which should make sane people worried...
Any valid counter-argument must show how it doesn't improve quality of life...
The kind of valid counter-argument you ask for would be a applicable to a valid argument. For now, you have not presented a valid argument. I don't consider it an argument as long as "quality of life" is undefined. You did not deny that it's undefined, so...
- It's not an argument. An argument contains defined terms. You have failed to define quality of life.
Quality of life is defined as the state of feeling dissatisfied while being in constant misery and pain. :faint:
Again, how does this get you same-sex marriage? And I mean specifically same-sex marriage, not a sandwich, picking your nose, or Nazi propaganda.
Look at your own "argument" again: "Same-sex marriage significantly improves quality of life for some people without harming anyone." How is this an argument for same-sex marriage specifically, and not for e.g. Nazi propaganda? Propaganda is merely verbal, so it cannot harm anyone, while it significantly improves the "quality of life" (i.e. personal satisfaction) of some people, namely Nazi sympathisers. There are likely more Nazi sympathisers than gays, so let's argue for this benefit, shall we.
With personal satisfaction anyone can justify anything. An important aspect of moral theories is precisely to prevent people from going down the exclusively selfish path.
Living in a society where violence might occur more or less at random (e.g., in a non-rechtsstaat) objectively reduces well-being.
Just a tiny little nuance here. Rechtsstaat or not, violence always occurs more or less at random. Some groups, such as gay priders, specifically invite contempt and random acts of violence. The point with rechtsstaat is not that there's no violence, but that there's retribution for unjust violence. Agree?
Once you agree, I'll show you how this presupposes a moral theory entirely different from what you have been conjecturing here.
This charge is utterly ludicrous because it applies to you, not to me. My definition of marriage is solidly connected to the biological fact that humans procreate heterosexually only. Is this not epistemological/empirical enough for you? Or else, what do you mean by "epistemological basis in reality"? I hesitate to ask this, because you have been dismal with definitions, yet you keep adding new undefined terms.
I don't know why you have such issues with people responding to your own red herrings. You charged my view of morality with not actually dealing with morality; I quipped that your supposed basis of morality is effectively fictional from my naturalist perspective.
My marriage isn't about procreation; it's about commitment. This includes commitment to future children, but why should I be judgmental of those who choose not to or who can't have children?
Okay. And how does this sandwich argument get you same-sex marriage? And I mean specifically same-sex marriage, not a sandwich, picking your nose, or Nazi propaganda.
It would save you from making claims like that gay marriage isn't natural.
The kind of valid counter-argument you ask for would be a applicable to a valid argument. For now, you have not presented a valid argument. I don't consider it an argument as long as "quality of life" is undefined. You did not deny that it's undefined, so...
WTF?
Look at your own "argument" again: "Same-sex marriage significantly improves quality of life for some people without harming anyone." How is this an argument for same-sex marriage specifically, and not for e.g. Nazi propaganda?
It's
not an argument for same-sex marriage specifically. That's the whole point. That notwithstanding, your Nazi propaganda example is even more ludicrous than your earlier pedophilia one. Unless, of course, you presuppose a counter-factual world where Nazi propaganda doesn't almost invariably lead to discrimination and violence. I don't know what's so hard about this to understand. Eating a
grossdeliciously greasy hamburger every day might increase well-being in the short term, but in ten years when you're obese you'll regret it. And even though I meant this as an example of conflicting desires (i.e., the desire to be healthy and the desire to eat hamburgers), it also works as an analogy for Nazi propaganda. After all, in the short term it is at least conceivable that it would increase overall well-being as you asserted. It's only once the propaganda starts to take effect that the severely negative consequences will begin being felt.
With personal satisfaction anyone can justify anything. An important aspect of moral theories is precisely to prevent people from going down the exclusively selfish path.
It might be able to justify more than you like, but it certainly wouldn't be able to justify everything. Just think of the famous ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) where both grudgers
and cheaters can be evolutionarily stable even though a particular stable ESS may have virtually zero chance of occurring naturally. I can't immediately think of a moral equivalent, except in the sense that the example itself seems to have a moral component. Assuming cheaters have a desire to cheat, it may well be moral to cheat in a population of cheaters provided they also have a desire for being properly cheated. It might be immoral in this society to cheat in an unsophisticated manner, for example. I shoot myself in the foot by using something normally condemnable as an example, but when you get right down to it I'm sure we'd have an equally hard time leaving our preconceptions at the door when you talk about Sisyphus finding purpose in his boulder (like in Camus).
The point with rechtsstaat is not that there's no violence, but that there's retribution for unjust violence. Agree?
And that's one of the last-resort tools we have for molding desires, but the basic tools are praise and condemnation. This remains true no matter what you think metaphysically or meta-ethically.
The world is getting apart and they discuss about homosexuals... :faint:
I wonder what historians and anthropologists 500 years in the future would say about these times.
So I let a message for the future historians - no, it was not my fault.
My definition of marriage is solidly connected to the biological fact that humans procreate heterosexually only.
In which case, it appears your definition of marriage is incorrect. At no point in human recorded history has marriage strictly been about procreation. An old man and old woman fall in love and marry. However, because of their age, they are unable to conceive children. Is their marriage somehow unnatural? Is their marriage somehow invalid?
Your definition also begs the question, why to we need the human population to continue increasing? If anything, it's "unnatural" for a species as large as human to occur in such numbers as it is.
An old man and old woman fall in love and marry. However, because of their age, they are unable to conceive children. Is their marriage somehow unnatural? Is their marriage somehow invalid?
You seem,
Sang, as always to confuse your own perspective with things -both natural and scientific- that are quite well understood: For you, sexuality is either a mere preference — or, when your polemical bent requires, "in the genes"…
That's how you were taught to argue, I suspect.
But I decided to reply because of your
why [d]o we need the human population to continue increasing? If anything, it's "unnatural" for a species as large as human[ity] to occur in such numbers as it is [?]
Because we're not lemmings? :) But, seriously, are you one of those fanatics that think Erlich and his like are scientists?
The population bomb won't go boom, unless modern industrial society crumbles… Then, all bets are off.
Do you salivate at the prospect? :(
I don't know why you have such issues with people responding to your own red herrings. You charged my view of morality with not actually dealing with morality; I quipped that your supposed basis of morality is effectively fictional from my naturalist perspective.
Yes, you said that my morality was effectively fictional - without showing how. Which part of it is fictional? Which part of it has no basis in epistemology? Whereas your own naturalist perspective emphasising "desires" is neither naturalist (in naturalism, there are only physical things, and desires are not physical), epistemological or moral (you are not getting right and wrong from there and you have not shown reasons to promote this or that thing). Which makes all you have said about these things a giant red herring.
My marriage isn't about procreation; it's about commitment. This includes commitment to future children, but why should I be judgmental of those who choose not to or who can't have children?
Yeah, but commitment is hard. There's no reason to desire it. Which is why people have no commitment. So, what's the reason to promote commitment? Where does it come from? Where are you getting it from? Why are you promoting it? Where is it grounded? And how long should the commitment be to be counted as commitment? It doesn't follow from your system how commitment is a virtue. In fact, it doesn't follow from your system if there are any virtues.
Looks like a totally random choice on your part for no reason whatsoever. Even if I granted that marriage is about commitment, the fundamental definitional problem remains - many things are "about commitment" but it doesn't make them marriage. Some people are totally committed to their job, it doesn't make their relationship to job a marriage. And we could say everybody is committed to their addictions, computer games, drugs, etc. but these are not marriage.
So, you are not making any progress from the definitional point of view.
Okay. And how does this sandwich argument get you same-sex marriage? And I mean specifically same-sex marriage, not a sandwich, picking your nose, or Nazi propaganda.
It would save you from making claims like that gay marriage isn't natural.
So, now you think it suffices you to say that gay marriage (and sandwich and picking your own nose and Nazi propaganda) is natural. Another undefined term. You are not improving things.
Look at your own "argument" again: "Same-sex marriage significantly improves quality of life for some people without harming anyone." How is this an argument for same-sex marriage specifically, and not for e.g. Nazi propaganda?
It's not an argument for same-sex marriage specifically. That's the whole point. That notwithstanding, your Nazi propaganda example is even more ludicrous than your earlier pedophilia one. Unless, of course, you presuppose a counter-factual world where Nazi propaganda doesn't almost invariably lead to discrimination and violence. I don't know what's so hard about this to understand.
Which part of the word
definition is so hard to understand? If you are not specifically making a case for gay marriage, then we have no case for gay marriage. Which means your alleged argument for gay marriage is not an argument for gay marriage, now by your own admission. You have been just emitting hot air and wasting digital space.
The reason why definition is important is that you could specifically make a case for gay marriage, both for the gay part and marriage part. But for now all you get is sandwich, picking your own nose, and Nazi propaganda. Because when your approach is as vague and undefined as it is, then anything goes, and for proof I can anytime point to your approach to bestiality and incest. Nevermind, you have by now basically conceded that picking your own nose is marriage, just as long as you stay committed to it.
Eating a grossdeliciously greasy hamburger every day might increase well-being in the short term, but in ten years when you're obese you'll regret it. And even though I meant this as an example of conflicting desires (i.e., the desire to be healthy and the desire to eat hamburgers), it also works as an analogy for Nazi propaganda. After all, in the short term it is at least conceivable that it would increase overall well-being as you asserted. It's only once the propaganda starts to take effect that the severely negative consequences will begin being felt.
And this gives us reason to support gay marriage how? Because there's "well-being" in it? Hedonism is the ideal? If yes, why have you not named it yet, so we can get on to counter-arguments to hedonism (for example, that it promotes lack of commitment, the exact opposite to what it takes to have marriage as per your claims)? If no, then you are not clarifying anything.
With personal satisfaction anyone can justify anything. An important aspect of moral theories is precisely to prevent people from going down the exclusively selfish path.
It might be able to justify more than you like, but it certainly wouldn't be able to justify everything. Just think of the famous ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) where both grudgers and cheaters can be evolutionarily stable even though a particular stable ESS may have virtually zero chance of occurring naturally. I can't immediately think of a moral equivalent, except in the sense that the example itself seems to have a moral component. Assuming cheaters have a desire to cheat, it may well be moral to cheat in a population of cheaters provided they also have a desire for being properly cheated. It might be immoral in this society to cheat in an unsophisticated manner, for example. I shoot myself in the foot by using something normally condemnable as an example, but when you get right down to it I'm sure we'd have an equally hard time leaving our preconceptions at the door when you talk about Sisyphus finding purpose in his boulder (like in Camus).
You mean the model Dawkins describes in Selfish Gene? What's moral in it when cheaters win? the funny thing is that it's not moral even when grudgers win. Whichever wins, neither gives us human sense of morality as we know it. So, the reason to take this seriously as a moral argument, or at least as a way in which morality could have evolutionarily evolved, is........?
Edit: By the way, bringing up any evolutionary model is a massive shot in the foot on your part insofar as same-sex marriage is concerned, because evolutionary models are all about reproductive advantage, whereas there's no reproductive advantage in same-sex marriage. Homosexual (and other non-reproductive sexual) behaviour begins to fit an evolutionary model at the point when the ecosystem is overpopulated and thus reproduction ceases to be a concern. However, in human social and moral terms, this does not make a case for same-sex marriage. In human social and moral terms, overpopulation signifies the point when marriage loses purpose, and so same-sex marriage remains the definitional oxymoron it always was.
In human social and moral terms, these developments signify the point where evolution of the society stops and decay begins. If you think the threshold to decadence justifies same-sex marriage, then sorry, exact same circumstances justify all non-reproductive sexual behaviour, including pedophilia, and if you think it justifies restriction of population by abortion and condoms, then similarly it justifies cannibalism. Throughout, your call to not harm others remains ungrounded. /edit
The point with rechtsstaat is not that there's no violence, but that there's retribution for unjust violence. Agree?
And that's one of the last-resort tools we have for molding desires, but the basic tools are praise and condemnation. This remains true no matter what you think metaphysically or meta-ethically.
No, it's not the last resort. It's the guiding principle. If it were not the guiding principle, there would be no reason to call it rechtsstaat.
Let me remind you that I easily and thoroughly refuted your description how rechtsstaat operates. Since this is true, along with other points, such as the fact that you have not provided a single definition of any of the relevant terms, everything you say is suspect. You are facing the task of proving that you think at all, morally, epistemologically, metaphysically, metaethically. And the relevance of your ESS model also remains to be separately proven. It's your job to show whether there's anything moral in it and how you derive gay marriage from there.
Yes, you said that my morality was effectively fictional - without showing how. Which part of it is fictional? Which part of it has no basis in epistemology? Whereas your own naturalist perspective emphasising "desires" is neither naturalist (in naturalism, there are only physical things, and desires are not physical), epistemological or moral (you are not getting right and wrong from there and you have not shown reasons to promote this or that thing). Which makes all you have said about these things a giant red herring.
That's simply a statement about our beliefs regarding the nature of reality. Everything you say about God and morality is, crudely put, "fictional" from an naturalist perspective. It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion, but you brought it up. Mea culpa for responding to your red herring. :P
in naturalism, there are only physical things, and desires are not physical
And this gives us reason to support gay marriage how? Because there's "well-being" in it? Hedonism is the ideal? If yes, why have you not named it yet, so we can get on to counter-arguments to hedonism (for example, that it promotes lack of commitment, the exact opposite to what it takes to have marriage as per your claims)? If no, then you are not clarifying anything.
If desires aren't physical then they aren't real, and if they aren't real then my theory of morality has no firm epistemological basis in reality. This is most definitely a valid objection. Naturally, however, I believe that desires (or "wanting") have a neuroscientific, physical basis. Wanting is distinct from pleasure (or "liking"). More concretely, if I lacked a desire for pleasure, then pleasure would be meaningless. Wanting is what causes me to act and decide. By taking desires as my basis, I mean to avoid the charge that utilitarianism or hedonism take an arbitrary property and call it important. In brief, wanting is the only reason which we have for acting that is epistemologically grounded in reality.
Pragmatically, of course this has a lot of overlap with something along the lines of Epicurean/hedonistic utilitarianism as long as we're talking about human society. Epicurus also used the equivalent to my hamburger example from earlier, just like Buddhists do. Short term indulgence (popularly, and I would argue incorrectly, known as hedonism) leads to long-term dissatisfaction. Committing to something like marriage, which leads to long-term mental as well as physical health, satisfaction, and well-being, is indeed hedonistic in nature.
So, now you think it suffices you to say that gay marriage (and sandwich and picking your own nose and Nazi propaganda) is natural. Another undefined term. You are not improving things.
Again, you're the one who brought this up. It plays no part in any of my reasoning. Homosexuality occurs all over nature at large, and even if it didn't, their very existence within humanity makes them natural. If you're using the word in a way disconnected from how people normally use it, that's on you. Defining terms is necessary only if you wish to use them in deviant or (domain) specific ways, such as when I used the word hedonism above, otherwise it's just white noise.
Which part of the word definition is so hard to understand? If you are not specifically making a case for gay marriage, then we have no case for gay marriage. Which means your alleged argument for gay marriage is not an argument for gay marriage, now by your own admission. You have been just emitting hot air and wasting digital space.
The specifics are obviously in how it improves lives and doesn't do harm, such as how societies with gay marriage have objectively higher well-being than those without.
Nevermind, you have by now basically conceded that picking your own nose is marriage, just as long as you stay committed to it.
Keep dreamin'.
You mean the model Dawkins describes in Selfish Gene? What's moral in it when cheaters win? the funny thing is that it's not moral even when grudgers win. Whichever wins, neither gives us human sense of morality as we know it. So, the reason to take this seriously as a moral argument, or at least as a way in which morality could have evolutionarily evolved, is........?
The reason to take your pedophilia, your nose picking, your Nazis seriously is…? :)
Edit: By the way, bringing up any evolutionary model is a massive shot in the foot on your part insofar as same-sex marriage is concerned, because evolutionary models are all about reproductive advantage, whereas there's no reproductive advantage in same-sex marriage.
You already know my argument is that what you called worker bees (or was it ants?) offer a reproductive advantage to their related genes.
In human social and moral terms, overpopulation signifies the point when marriage loses purpose, and so same-sex marriage remains the definitional oxymoron it always was.
I don't much care what it's called. Sure, a prototypical marriage includes (biological) children, and in that sense gay marriage without adopted children is a bit like a dry river, in much the same way as my own river isn't yet in danger of flooding the surrounding landscape. I admit that in my younger days I voted against the European constitution because it obviously wasn't a constitution. Some people are unhappy that effectively the same thing was later passed as a constitutional agreement, but when you get down to it that name change took care of my primary objections. Because a constitution should be unequivocal about its intentions, and an agreement can say something weaker like that the EU will try to promote human rights in its member states. You might argue that I'm overcompensating for my brusqueness of youth, that I'm a product of our post-modernist society, and who knows, there might even be something to that. But no matter what word you use to refer to them, the crux of my argument is that gay committed relationships are morally good. Your argument is similarly that they're bad no matter what you call them.
No, it's not the last resort. It's the guiding principle. If it were not the guiding principle, there would be no reason to call it rechtsstaat.
The guiding principle of our society is not that most people are psychopaths whose only reason to refrain from doing violence is fear of punishment.
You are facing the task of proving that you think at all, morally, epistemologically, metaphysically, metaethically. And the relevance of your ESS model also remains to be separately proven. It's your job to show whether there's anything moral in it and how you derive gay marriage from there.
I presented the ESS model as an example of how different equilibria are theoretically possible. Besides that, as I already indicated, we're at an impasse because from my perspective you face the exact same problem. Your morality, metaphysics and metaethics have no epistemological ground, because you don't care about how you know things. You just make things up out of
@midnight raccoon's ivory tower. Such is the basic conflict between empiricism and idealism.
The world is getting apart and they discuss about homosexuals... :faint:
I wonder what historians and anthropologists 500 years in the future would say about these times.
So I let a message for the future historians - no, it was not my fault.
Blame Belfrager has a nice ring to it. All together now: WHO DO WE BLAME? BELFRAGER!!! WHEN DO WE BLAME HIM? FROM NOW AND FOR THE NEXT FIVE CENTURIES!
I guess our ability to obsess about minor details is a characteristic of our species. Trans-people needing to use the toilet in US Midwestern shopping malls or gay marriage are not among the biggest issues our species is facing (ersi might disagree), but at least it keeps this forum going, and the carping on the awfulness of America was running low on steam.
You are facing the task of proving that you think at all, morally, epistemologically, metaphysically, metaethically.
Of course, compared to a "real" philosopher — someone who has dedicated their life to thinking about such broader matters under peer review from other professional thinkers — I am out of my depth, because I only do so in my spare time. A proper philosophical defense of my mode of thinking can generally be found in writings by Richard Carrier, such as here: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.be/2011/03/moral-ontology.html I haven't really been influenced by him in the development of my ideas because I only discovered his writing a couple of years ago, but by and large when I read his arguments I can gladly say that's how I might've expressed it, and insofar as philosophical rigorousness goes how I would express it if I had but world enough and time, so referring to him is usually a safe bet. Specifically look at the header "value realism" and beyond. A few quotations:
Before proceeding to the punchline I have to pause to say what I'm even talking about. Moral facts consist of imperatives, and imperatives are statements about what we "ought" to do (or who or what sort of person we ought to be). What does "ought" mean? That which we would do if we were reasoning logically and knew and understood all the relevant facts of our situation.
For example, "you ought to change the oil in your car" means "if you knew your car was running low on oil, and you don’t want your car’s engine to seize up, then you would change the oil in your car (as long as you were able to without harm)." If you want your car's engine to seize up, then "you ought to change the oil in your car" is false. But if you don't want that, then "you ought to change the oil in your car" would be objectively true, i.e. it would be true even if you believed it was false. Your opinion of the matter, what you liked or thought, would be irrelevant to its being true. In that case if you said it was false you would simply be mistaken about what you ought to do.
Moral facts are thus facts about the behavior of physical systems, in particular social and neurological systems. Since these and other facts are objective facts of the world (and thus not just opinions), our moral emotions and intuitions can be in error. We can feel guilty for something that wasn't in fact wrong, or feel righteous for doing what is actually vile. Moral facts are thus not opinions. Moral facts are facts about what is and what we want, regardless of what we believe those are. The morality of an act is therefore a property of a physical system: it refers to the physical relations among the components of that system, including (a) the things you want most in the world, which desires are physical structures in your brain, (b) the way the world works generally (such as the way technologies and economies and societies and brains work), and (c) the actual physical circumstances you find yourself in (the "moral context" of a given decision).
Why is it wrong to rape a woman?
Because it hurts a woman.
Why is it wrong to hurt a woman?
Because it's uncompassionate.
Why is it wrong to be uncompassionate?
Because by being an uncompassionate person, your life will suck, more than it would suck if you were a compassionate person. And it is irrational to choose what will make your life suck more, than what you could have chosen instead.
NB None of this directly is about what particular moral facts are, but only deals with the ontological foundation of how morality physically exists.
Moral facts consist of imperatives, and imperatives are statements about what we "ought" to do (or who or what sort of person we ought to be). What does "ought" mean? That which we would do if we were reasoning logically and knew and understood all the relevant facts of our situation.
Ought we not mention the history of Western man because 'oughts' vary over time, and there's the fact that oughts differ by region.
What were Viking oughts? Classical Chinese oughts? And, yes, even Portuguese oughts. :o
That's simply a statement about our beliefs regarding the nature of reality. Everything you say about God and morality is, crudely put, "fictional" from an naturalist perspective. It's also completely irrelevant to the discussion, but you brought it up. Mea culpa for responding to your red herring. :P
But we tried your so-called naturalism which had nothing natural or physical in it. That was short, because there nothing else in it either. Particularly nothing topical.
If desires aren't physical then they aren't real, and if they aren't real then my theory of morality has no firm epistemological basis in reality. This is most definitely a valid objection. Naturally, however, I believe that desires (or "wanting") have a neuroscientific, physical basis. Wanting is distinct from pleasure (or "liking"). More concretely, if I lacked a desire for pleasure, then pleasure would be meaningless. Wanting is what causes me to act and decide. By taking desires as my basis, I mean to avoid the charge that utilitarianism or hedonism take an arbitrary property and call it important. In brief, wanting is the only reason which we have for acting that is epistemologically grounded in reality.
False conclusion. Because you are completely off track with your belief that desires have a neuroscientific basis. But keep the faith. Neuroscientists get closer to the physical basis of mental operations day by day, so they say.
You see, people have been living im/morally and known about it since forever, without any help from neuroscientists. So, may I gently suggest that morality and neuroscience probably have no logical connection. Morality has been competently discussed without any neuroscientism for millennia. As a minimum, as long as neuroscientists are busy discovering what they urgently need to discover to prove you right, please find a meaningful way to communicate moral matters to fellow humans.
Epicurus also used the equivalent to my hamburger example from earlier, just like Buddhists do. Short term indulgence (popularly, and I would argue incorrectly, known as hedonism) leads to long-term dissatisfaction.
So, morality is long-term satisfaction. As in: Don't kill your wife in immediate anger. Bide your time and make it perfect. Make it so that nobody finds out. It will be much better that way...
I know Buddhism. That's not in there. It is in hedonism though, provided that your wife is not stronger and smarter than you, and earning better than you so that killing her would stop the flow of money you depend on.
Committing to something like marriage, which leads to long-term mental as well as physical health, satisfaction, and well-being, is indeed hedonistic in nature.
Most marriages wind down in a few years and the relationship turns into suffering for both. The reason to keep the commitment is.....? Given hedonism, none.
Homosexuality occurs all over nature at large, and even if it didn't, their very existence within humanity makes them natural.
Cannibalists exists. By your own words, their very existence within humanity ( <-another term you will have to define) makes them natural. Disagree? Then reword what you say. More properly: Think first, then speak.
If you're using the word in a way disconnected from how people normally use it, that's on you. Defining terms is necessary only if you wish to use them in deviant or (domain) specific ways, such as when I used the word hedonism above, otherwise it's just white noise.
Ditto. Because your speech is disconnected both from reality and from itself, i.e. self-contradictory. Hardly any statement has a logical connection to another. There is no logical foundation and no rational conclusion.
The specifics are obviously in how it improves lives and doesn't do harm, such as how societies with gay marriage have objectively higher well-being than those without.
What's the objective measure? GDP per capita? Then what is Qatar doing there between Norway and Switzerland? Or is it the Gross National Happiness, invented by Bhutan? And I hear that Brazil decriminalised homosexuality in 1830 and look where they are now...
The reason to take your pedophilia, your nose picking, your Nazis seriously is…? :)
The reason is that you have not shown a reason to keep them away. By your own words "It might be able to justify more than you like..." You are constantly justifying more than you'd like, so you constantly need to rein your system in and keep looking for additional conditions to keep unpleasant things out. Even so, you have already admitted bestiality and incest, and that picking your nose with sufficient commitment equals marriage. Not that you would regret these things, of course, because there's no shame or conscience in your system anyway.
You already know my argument is that what you called worker bees (or was it ants?) offer a reproductive advantage to their related genes.
And you know that this analogy gets you crucified by LGBT ideologists. And hailed by Nazis who think only good pure Arian genes should reproduce, while the labour camp rubble should labour.
What should I say about this analogy? I'll let you have it and wish you good luck enjoying the consequences of your own reasoning. As a sidenote, let's note that worker bees (and ants) don't have marriage. It's something that doesn't belong to them by virtue of their social (and biological) status.
In human social and moral terms, overpopulation signifies the point when marriage loses purpose, and so same-sex marriage remains the definitional oxymoron it always was.
I don't much care what it's called. Sure, a prototypical marriage includes (biological) children, and in that sense gay marriage without adopted children is a bit like a dry river, in much the same way as my own river isn't yet in danger of flooding the surrounding landscape. I admit that in my younger days I voted against the European constitution because it obviously wasn't a constitution.
I guess this is as close as you'll come to admit that same-sex marriage is not really marriage. Thank you very much!
No, it's not the last resort. It's the guiding principle. If it were not the guiding principle, there would be no reason to call it rechtsstaat.
The guiding principle of our society is not that most people are psychopaths whose only reason to refrain from doing violence is fear of punishment.
But there are also some non-psychopaths who don't have violent (or otherwise immoral) impulses to struggle with and so have nothing to fear in a rechtsstaat. Insofar as it is a rechtsstaat.
Your morality, metaphysics and metaethics have no epistemological ground, because you don't care about how you know things. You just make things up out of @midnight raccoon's ivory tower. Such is the basic conflict between empiricism and idealism.
First, I care a lot how I know things and how I justify them. I never justify anything with beliefs or assumptions, only with facts and logical proofs. It's a different topic, so not too much to say about it.
Second, empiricism would be an epistemological position, but you have not yet shown an epistemological position. You have revealed a moral position (hedonism) and a metaphysical position (atomism, materialism, physicalism, misleadingly called naturalism these days). These two tend to go hand in hand and tend to be associated with empiricism, but the latter connection is unjustified in the modern world. Namely, the connection assumes that feelings are neurological and that thinking is brain activity, but no such connection has been empirically proven in neuroscience. Neuroscience operates from these presuppositions and tries to prove them, but hasn't, so there's no empirical basis to it. If there were, you would be an empiricist, but there isn't, so it's a bit too much to call you an empiricist. In the light of modern neuroscience, those who call themselves empiricists are simply operating from baseless assumptions (such as *belief* that desires have a physical basis), having dropped the rational framework too early, without a reason.
You are facing the task of proving that you think at all, morally, epistemologically, metaphysically, metaethically.
Of course, compared to a "real" philosopher — someone who has dedicated their life to thinking about such broader matters under peer review from other professional thinkers — I am out of my depth, because I only do so in my spare time. A proper philosophical defense of my mode of thinking can generally be found in writings by Richard Carrier, such as here: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.be/2011/03/moral-ontology.html I haven't really been influenced by him in the development of my ideas because I only discovered his writing a couple of years ago, but by and large when I read his arguments I can gladly say that's how I might've expressed it, and insofar as philosophical rigorousness goes how I would express it if I had but world enough and time, so referring to him is usually a safe bet. Specifically look at the header "value realism" and beyond. A few quotations:
Before proceeding to the punchline I have to pause to say what I'm even talking about. Moral facts consist of imperatives, and imperatives are statements about what we "ought" to do (or who or what sort of person we ought to be). What does "ought" mean? That which we would do if we were reasoning logically and knew and understood all the relevant facts of our situation.
For example, "you ought to change the oil in your car" means "if you knew your car was running low on oil, and you don’t want your car’s engine to seize up, then you would change the oil in your car (as long as you were able to without harm)." If you want your car's engine to seize up, then "you ought to change the oil in your car" is false. But if you don't want that, then "you ought to change the oil in your car" would be objectively true, i.e. it would be true even if you believed it was false. Your opinion of the matter, what you liked or thought, would be irrelevant to its being true. In that case if you said it was false you would simply be mistaken about what you ought to do.
How is this a moral fact? Let's add some more random real-life fluff around the story. The owner of the car is a filthy rich playboy, with totally other interests in his life. If the car stops working, he buys a new car - the same rationale as with his girlfriends. Why "ought" he worry about oil in his car? On Carrier's system, he has no reason to.
Why is it wrong to rape a woman?
Because it hurts a woman.
Why is it wrong to hurt a woman?
Because it's uncompassionate.
Why is it wrong to be uncompassionate?
Because by being an uncompassionate person, your life will suck, more than it would suck if you were a compassionate person. And it is irrational to choose what will make your life suck more, than what you could have chosen instead.
NB None of this directly is about what particular moral facts are, but only deals with the ontological foundation of how morality physically exists.
Wow, this refuted itself pretty fast. All that talk about empirical/physical basis, and already at the second question he must bring in compassion which has not been identified physically and thus is not physical or empirical. So, obviously, even physicalists need a non-physical basis to justify morality. Otherwise there's no morality. QED.
In this forum, I have refuted Krauss, Harris, and the teapot anecdote (I owe a few insights to Russell and I respect him, but the teapot thingie deserves a decisive rejection). It's a thankless job to do these things out of my own initiative. I will refute Richard Carrier more thoroughly only if he shows up here in person.
Most marriages wind down in a few years and the relationship turns into suffering for both. The reason to keep the commitment is.....? Given hedonism, none.
Sounds about right. Where's the problem?
Cannibalists exists. By your own words, their very existence within humanity ( <-another term you will have to define) makes them natural. Disagree? Then reword what you say. More properly: Think first, then speak.
Of course cannibalism is natural. That's exactly why something being natural isn't necessarily a particularly relevant thing to note. Humanity is a term that needs to be defined? Come on, that's beyond silly.
And you know that this analogy gets you crucified by LGBT ideologists. And hailed by Nazis who think only good pure Arian genes should reproduce, while the labour camp rubble should labour.
Why should I care about some ad hominem? Either it's accurate or it isn't. That's completely unrelated to whether anyone likes it. I like lots of thing that aren't true and I dislike many things that are. Only the reality-challenged think that is something to celebrate rather than to watch out for.
Most marriages wind down in a few years and the relationship turns into suffering for both. The reason to keep the commitment is.....? Given hedonism, none.
Sounds about right. Where's the problem?
The problem is that the call to commitment proves empty at that point.
Of course cannibalism is natural. That's exactly why something being natural isn't necessarily a particularly relevant thing to note.
Which raises the question why you noted that homosexuality is natural. Let's suppose that homosexuality and cannibalism are natural. So what? Where's the point that is supposed to follow from this? Both are natural, but it's somehow trivially self-evident that homosexuality is morally justified while cannibalism is not? Does "do not harm others" somehow stop cannibalism? Maybe it would, if it didn't prove equally empty as the call to commitment...
Why should I care about some ad hominem? Either it's accurate or it isn't. That's completely unrelated to whether anyone likes it. I like lots of thing that aren't true and I dislike many things that are. Only the reality-challenged think that is something to celebrate rather than to watch out for.
Try to survive LGBT(Q etc.) gestapo interrogation with these justifications. It's beyond my power.
I have a hard time deciding which is worse: self-refutation or circular reasoning.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7l8dx-h8M[/video]
The problem is that the call to commitment proves empty at that point.
Commitment isn't good all by itself. That's why you dragged in silly things like committing to drugs, but some marriages are indeed destructive like drugs. That being said, it's certainly possible that many of those were stupid for getting married in the first place. This is something you sometimes see in religious circles, where people often get married more out of lust than anything else.
Which raises the question why you noted that homosexuality is natural. Let's suppose that homosexuality and cannibalism are natural. So what? Where's the point that is supposed to follow from this? Both are natural, but it's somehow trivially self-evident that homosexuality is morally justified while cannibalism is not?
No… we've been over this. You're the one who brought it up. :)
People often get caught up in you're wrong, and even if you were right you'd still be wrong. This is one of those cases. @midnight raccoon's argument is simply that there's nothing inherently good or bad about the fact that an act is natural, but even if there were, being gay is natural.
Try to survive LGBT(Q etc.) gestapo interrogation with these justifications. It's beyond my power.
Even ignoramuses need nothing but Wikipedia for a quick primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
When discussing concepts like "kin selection" (…or even "natural selection") one needs to recur to the obvious: Evolution is a mindless, purposeless mechanism. Which obviates most if not all arguments of its proponents…
But they can't help themselves: Mindlessness is difficult to achieve! (Not impossible — stupidity often comes quite close.)
Rationality is first rejected; then sought by every means possible!
What would be an evolutionist's point, "explaining" a mindless process?
Oh! Teacher, I know: Prediction! (How's that working out? :) )
Commitment isn't good all by itself.
Then why did you mention it? The point is that you mentioned it, but insincerely, self-refutingly. When you said that in marriage the couple should be committed, you really meant "committed as long as they feel like it". And as soon as they stop feeling like it? In the normal world, when someone's mood shifts trump commitment, that's called lack of commitment.
That's why you dragged in silly things like committing to drugs, but some marriages are indeed destructive like drugs. That being said, it's certainly possible that many of those were stupid for getting married in the first place.
Right. All this went to prove that when you said "commitment" you had really no idea what you were saying. It was yet another word that needed a definition, and it quickly turned out that the way you meant it was opposite to what it really means.
This is something you sometimes see in religious circles, where people often get married more out of lust than anything else.
Or in gay circles, where people get married in order to be a hip gay couple, but when that ceases being hip, they just continue being gay grasshoppers, because being gay matters more than anything else. But if they stop feeling gay, God forbid...
Try to survive LGBT(Q etc.) gestapo interrogation with these justifications. It's beyond my power.
Even ignoramuses need nothing but Wikipedia for a quick primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
Remember what you said, very recently, "Either it's accurate or it isn't. That's completely unrelated to whether anyone likes it. I like lots of thing that aren't true and I dislike many things that are. Only the reality-challenged think that is something to celebrate rather than to watch out for."
If I'm reading right, then in your own queer way you are here raising truth and realism up as a higher value over and above whether anyone likes it. This is how it should be for any principled thinker (when it isn't, we are not dealing with a principled thinker). The problem is that when you stay committed to this principle ("committed" in the normal sense, committed to truth regardless if you like it or not, or whether anyone else likes it or not, and you honestly face the consequences of your own thinking against other people's opposing opinion), then in LGBT ideology, the verdict is crucifixion. In LGBT ideology, feelings are everything (precisely in the way you talked about commitment in marriage earlier) and they trump truth and realism. In LGBT ideology, when someone feels offended, then that means you are wrong and you must apologise. You broke the principle on which they operate. They reject your advocacy.
You would not survive the LGBT(Q etc.) gestapo interrogation. Just saying.
It's been such a bad week for you. You even lost to Wales. Hopefully, it cannot get any worse than this.
People often get caught up in you're wrong, and even if you were right you'd still be wrong. This is one of those cases. @midnight raccoon's argument is simply that there's nothing inherently good or bad about the fact that an act is natural, but even if there were, being gay is natural.
This one is hard to respond to, because it's hard to see in what way you mean it as a response to anything. It makes no sense whatsoever. Let's try anyway.
In the original context, you probably thought, "Oakdale should not bring up cannibals, because we already said that humans should not hurt each other. But cannibals hurt each other, so he is doing a non sequitur."
If you presupposed this before typing, there's a problem, the same problem as with your usage of "commitment". Namely, your "don't hurt" is the "don't hurt" of a whino. As long as the whino is being bullied, he says "don't hurt" and he feels it would be nice if "don't hurt" were the guiding principle of humanity. However, as soon as the whino is himself in the position of bullying, he does it without hesitation and sees no contradiction with his earlier feelings. Feelings then, feelings now, no contradiction. This is how things are for those who are guided by nothing else but feelings. This problem of self-refuting inconsistency is glaringly transparent to anyone who is not wedded to your side, but apparently it's not glaringly transparent to yourself.
If you meant it some other way (assuming you meant anything at all), let's hear.
Homosexual (and other non-reproductive sexual) behaviour begins to fit an evolutionary model at the point when the ecosystem is overpopulated and thus reproduction ceases to be a concern. However, in human social and moral terms, this does not make a case for same-sex marriage. In human social and moral terms, overpopulation signifies the point when marriage loses purpose, and so same-sex marriage remains the definitional oxymoron it always was.
I've a different point on this. At overpopulated systems, marriage doesn't lose purpose or function.
I need to recapitulate marriage's function, being the social institution that represent society's structure, what turns two people into the constitutive element, the basis cell, of an organic society that, as a living organism needs to reproduce and grow.
But human societies aren't just organic/biological they also have common shared moral, cultural and historical values that must be considered, at every moment and particularly the difficult ones, always in a deep constitutive symbiosis between it's parts.
(As such, logically that homosexual marriage can only be regarded as cancerous cells that, by way of spreading, would inevitably destroy the organic body of society.)
Overpopulation resumes to a stressful disequilibrium between resources and population.
It can't be solved by stopping society's cells regeneration, assured by marriage, but by acting on the other factors like producing more resources, emigration or less consumption, always while strengthen society's moral and cultural values.
Specially at difficult moments, marriage continues to be the very basis that grants a future for human societies to be at a higher level than just being a bunch of ape like tribes occupied assuring immediate needs and sexual appetites.
Homosexual (and other non-reproductive sexual) behaviour begins to fit an evolutionary model at the point when the ecosystem is overpopulated and thus reproduction ceases to be a concern. However, in human social and moral terms, this does not make a case for same-sex marriage. In human social and moral terms, overpopulation signifies the point when marriage loses purpose, and so same-sex marriage remains the definitional oxymoron it always was.
I've a different point on this. At overpopulated systems, marriage doesn't lose purpose or function.
Your point of view is of humanity as a holistic organism, where marriage is a function that may at hard times appear to malfunction, but it's always a necessary function, necessary not only for proliferation, but also for preservation. This is not a different view from mine. We have the exact same view.
What I wrote in that earlier post was not my view. It was the view of the evolutionary theorists. It's an ordinary tactic in discussions to adopt a contrary view, lead it to its logical conclusion and thus, if the conclusion is to be rejected, demonstrate that the whole view needs an overhaul, if it is to remain defensible.
Maybe I'm doing it so fast that people don't always notice. Maybe I'm not always marking it apart clearly enough. It's certainly true that not everything in contrary views is obviously and immediately condemnable, so it may appear as if I accept some of it. I don't. I only entertain it for the sake of argumentation. Edit: I'd probably make a good Jesuit, but there are good reasons not to be a Jesuit.
Then why did you mention it? The point is that you mentioned it, but insincerely, self-refutingly. When you said that in marriage the couple should be committed, you really meant "committed as long as they feel like it". And as soon as they stop feeling like it? In the normal world, when someone's mood shifts trump commitment, that's called lack of commitment.
At this point you're basically just trolling, so I'll ignore it without responding either seriously or in kind. :cheers:
In the original context, you probably thought, "Oakdale should not bring up cannibals, because we already said that humans should not hurt each other. But cannibals hurt each other, so he is doing a non sequitur."
I thought exactly what I said. Oakdale saw midnight's post and replied in a completely relevant manner. Except that in the broader context midnight's post was part of an irrelevant subargument and the problem Oakdale pointed out was actually part of your argument, not midnight's.
If I'm reading right, then in your own queer way you are here raising truth and realism up as a higher value over and above whether anyone likes it. This is how it should be for any principled thinker (when it isn't, we are not dealing with a principled thinker).
That's correct. Epistemic recklessness and negligence are moral crimes. If someone knows the truth and they ignore it because they don't like it they are reckless, while if someone doesn't ascertain the truth because they already like an idea they are negligent.
The problem is that when you stay committed to this principle ("committed" in the normal sense, committed to truth regardless if you like it or not, or whether anyone else likes it or not, and you honestly face the consequences of your own thinking against other people's opposing opinion), then in LGBT ideology, the verdict is crucifixion. In LGBT ideology, feelings are everything (precisely in the way you talked about commitment in marriage earlier) and they trump truth and realism. In LGBT ideology, when someone feels offended, then that means you are wrong and you must apologise. You broke the principle on which they operate. They reject your advocacy.
Do you have anything specific in mind? I mean, I'm sure there are LGBT fanatics just like there are fanatics in any other group, but I haven't actually come across any yet. I suppose I should add that I don't go looking either since other fanatics who serve themselves on a platter are more than enough. ;)
Epistemic recklessness and negligence are moral crimes. If someone knows the truth and they ignore it because they don't like it they are reckless, while if someone doesn't ascertain the truth because they already like an idea they are negligent.
We happen to have the same view on this point. Truth is, among other things, a moral category, a virtue to be aspired to. This is certainly a beneficial commonality, if you stay committed to it (in the normal sense).
Do you have anything specific in mind? I mean, I'm sure there are LGBT fanatics just like there are fanatics in any other group, but I haven't actually come across any yet. I suppose I should add that I don't go looking either since other fanatics who serve themselves on a platter are more than enough. ;)
A specific example of LGBT ideologists? This organisation http://www.rfsl.se/ I haven't browsed their website, but I know all about their activity from the news. I have linked to examples occasionally earlier.
I'd probably make a good Jesuit, but there are good reasons not to be a Jesuit.
:lol:
Jesuits rely on brilliant people to work with them, that's their strength. They will respect you and give you freedom, you'll act the same way.
Religious vocations are rare these days, they need to employ "civilians".
In LGBT ideology, when someone feels offended, then that means you are wrong and you must apologise. You broke the principle on which they operate. They reject your advocacy.
As if you know anything about LGBT "ideology" and even as if a single one even exists. Of course, your argument is basically one of political correctness. Just because something falls into the broad category of "politically incorrect" , it doesn't mean that it's factually correct. Many of these said against LGBT, even in this debate, are factually incorrect. When I check the other side's websites, I often see "The gays want this...." No, maybe A gay wants that while the broader LGBT community rejects it.
In LGBT ideology, when someone feels offended, then that means you are wrong and you must apologise. You broke the principle on which they operate. They reject your advocacy.
As if you know anything about LGBT "ideology" and even as if a single one even exists.
The stakes are clear. You have had nothing substantial to contribute to the discussion besides toilets. Whereas I have watched the development of LGBT agenda in Swedish news throughout this century. They have the organisation I pointed out to Frenzie which is more influential than the church. They teach "family models" to kindergarten children and they depose dissenting church politicians (ordinary dissenting politicians go without saying), and they issue "LGBTQ certificates" to every institution in the country which are already considered a normalcy, close to a requirement. Such is their power.
Edit. A current tidbit: The leader of the Christian Democrat party has announced she would participate at Stockholm gay pride this summer (http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article23063420.ab). The rest of the leadership of the party realises there's a conflict between Christian Democrat family values and "family models" as propagated by RFSL, and are struggling to formulate their stance on this point. Principled rhetoric (e.g. the way I formulate these issues) is ruled out, so they are not succeeding. /edit
Moreover, gay laws have been introduced meanwhile in Estonia and Finland. The debates are in fresh memory. You'd do well to update yourself if you want to stay relevant in the discussion.
Edit. This year, this forum has seen no arguments for same-sex marriage. Frenzie thought raccoon presented one, but raccoon never claimed to have presented one. Raccoon keeps just asserting things without logical connection and denouncing imaginary opposing views that are not represented here. Then Frenzie issued a statement that he claimed to be an argument for same-sex marriage, but honorably acknowledged soon that it was not really such.
As I have said before - the pro-gay side has no rational argument on their side, but they have won the lobbying. A bad century for pro-gay arguments, a bad century for family values and for politics in general. Dismal. /edit
and they issue "LGBTQ certificates" to every institution in the country which are already considered a normalcy, close to a requirement. Such is their power.
Are dear. such "Gestapo tactics".....'Here's you piece of paper. Have a nice day' :P
and they depose dissenting church politicians (ordinary dissenting politicians go without saying)
As if the anti-gay forces here don't try the opposite. Such is politics. A official has a position you opposite, so you support the candidate with an agreeable position to yours. This hardly unique to LGBT.
As far as my contributions go, I was content just to watch you and Belfrager dig your own graves with the moronic conspiracy theory arguments. To use another analogy, give the enough rope to hang yourselves. It didn't occur to you that I only needed enough effort to egg you on, did it? Further, I did not say that I didn't have an argument for same-sex marriage. I have many, including the "taming of homosexuality" one that offered previously. I said homosexuality is neither good or evil. It just is.
the pro-gay side has no rational argument on their side, but they have won the lobbying.
But why did they win? Because they approached the subject from a legal/constitutional perspective, the only one that's relevant in courts. Meanwhile, your side spouted of your pseudo-philosophical bullshit and made further jackasses of themselves by claiming equal marriage was somehow infringing on their freedom of religion.
and they issue "LGBTQ certificates" to every institution in the country which are already considered a normalcy, close to a requirement. Such is their power.
Are dear. such "Gestapo tactics".....'Here's you piece of paper. Have a nice day' :P
There are institutions that certify other institutions and businesses. Some such certifiers do it more or less for fun, without much pretension to relevance, while others are authoritative. RFSL is aspiring to become an official authority, so that institutions and businesses without their certificate will have a lesser degree of legitimacy. Their certificates already have this reputation, and the reputation is on the rise.
and they depose dissenting church politicians (ordinary dissenting politicians go without saying)
As if the anti-gay forces here don't try the opposite. Such is politics. A official has a position you opposite, so you support the candidate with an agreeable position to yours. This hardly unique to LGBT.
You don't understand what is happening. I'm not talking about candidates. I'm talking about an official functionary at a position, already elected. Then he says something and there will be instant pressure to remove him from his position. That's what depose means.
Here's the latest case http://www.smalanningen.se/article/homosexualitet-ar-bara-en-trend/ What did he say? "Homosexuality is just a trend." And he proposed that the church should not participate in pride parade. The result? Removed from his position in church within less than a week http://www.smp.se/tt-inrikes/kritiserad-kyrkopolitiker-avgar/ That's within a church. If this does not signify that gay ideology has taken over the church, then you lack basic comprehension of politics.
As far as my contributions go, I was content just to watch you and Belfrager dig your own graves with the moronic conspiracy theory arguments.
Nazis burnt Reichstag and blamed Commies. You call all conspiracies theories. One day you will be caught into a real one with your pants down. The sooner the better, because this way it will be a useful lesson for you. Later it will be too late.
As far as my contributions go, I was content just to watch you and Belfrager dig your own graves with the moronic conspiracy theory arguments. To use another analogy, give the enough rope to hang yourselves.
Wow, such extermination allegories.
It doesn't surprises me at all, nazis were always a bit gay. Gays are always a bit nazis.
My good friend, I thank you for nominate me but my interventions were always rare and scarce since I don't have the patience for your lobby and agenda. Basically, people like you repulses me.
You need to thank ersi, he gets all the credits by smashing all your arguments so patiently.
And, of course, there's no gay agenda (http://theresurgent.com/state-of-iowa-says-churches-must-let-men-use-the-womens-bathroom/)…
Utterly ridiculous that corner got allowed to steal a word like 'gay' and I never use that word to describe them.. Disgraceful..
Two [heterosexual] male friends marry in Dublin to avoid paying inheritance tax (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/two-male-friends-marry-dublin-inheritance-tax-michael-o-sullivan-matt-murphy-a8126781.html)
So marriage has become a legal tax loophole and nobody has any clue anymore as to its actual purpose. About high time to replace it with some more meaningful concept to avoid further disgrace.
The more the West drifts into this disgusting stuff the more piece meal countries become.
So marriage has become a legal tax loophole
Yes, I'm sure that's never ever happened with men and women. Very recent development. <_<
Last year the Shanghai government cracked down on sham divorces. They had put in restrictions that couples could only own their own property, so prospective house-buyers sometimes opted for pro forma divorces, so that they get hold of another.
The Norwegian benefits agency was pursuing sham separations for the same reason. For one particular benefit it was advantageous to be single parent, so they set in motion a major investigating operation, hitting hard on any set of parent that were found to be living together even if they officially didn't.
If the system gives sufficiently large incentives for being married or unmarried, some will take advantage of it.
Yes, I'm sure that's never ever happened with men and women.
Of course it has happened, but with a man and a woman it's a side issue. The main purpose of marriage is different. Whereas with the same sexers, there is no main purpose, just side issues.
We have discussed this before, and if I remember right, inheritance benefits were the only purpose you were able to name for marriage. So, if you, a smart guy, can't figure out the proper purpose of marriage, why should anyone else. Marriage as a social institution is doomed. Same-sexers fought and got for themselves a hollow pointless "right".
I probably said something like that there is marriage, the relationship between my wife and I, that's nobody's business but hers and mine or close to it. Then there's marriage, the contract that takes care of issues like custody, inheritance, and divorce.
Incidentally, adult adoption for inheritance purposes (https://adoption.com/adopting-an-adult) is also a thing.
I probably said something like that there is marriage, the relationship between my wife and I, that's nobody's business but hers and mine or close to it. Then there's marriage, the contract that takes care of issues like custody, inheritance, and divorce.
Both of these miss the main purpose of marriage. Besides, it never earlier occurred to you to name (child) custody as a thing - naturally, because the debate was over same-sex marriage.
And how is divorce a reason or purpose for marriage? You must be celebrating the new year already :) Happy New Year!
I don't really know what you're talking about specifically, but I implicitly mentioned it as adoption here:
There's hospital visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, immigration, etc., etc.
And how is divorce a reason or purpose for marriage?
Is death? :)
I don't really know what you're talking about specifically, but I implicitly mentioned it as adoption here:
So in your mind, when you say "adoption", it encompasses custody of one's own children? This only proves my point: Modern people have no clue about the main purpose of marriage and how other things in society relate to it.
Edit: Moreover, in the post you are quoting from, you are as if arguing against Barulheira when he says marriages and partnerships are only about
names. You do this by mentioning attributes that are not essential or definitional to marriage or partnership, i.e. you do this by adding more names to the mix.
Both of you miss the core point, a certain well-known biological fact that underlies the definition as per natural law philosophy. Supporters of Darwinian evolution generally are very vehement about facts like that, but they turn around 180 degrees when some currently hip politically correct nonsense needs to be argued for.
Adoption is a right of children, not adults.
Even less gay adults.
The map in the original post is getting seriously out of date.
This one from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) is fresher. In-the-navy-blue denotes countries where same-sex marriages are recognized as any other marriage, other colours have some intermediate or interim status, gray gives no recognition.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg/1280px-World_marriage-equality_laws.svg.png)
gray gives no recognition.
Antarctica keeps resisting to the the gay invasor.
Having seen that Sweden's mainstream media is not unquestioningly trans-positive anymore, but started asking questions, I assume that the peak of the silly modern gender ideology has passed and is now trending downwards. However, under the cover of the pride month, Estonia's government pushed through a marriage equality law. Now due to this, the Lutheran church of Estonia decided to stop registering marriages for the state (https://www.err.ee/1609027187/urmas-viilma-peatada-abielude-registreerimine-oli-kirikuvalitsuse-sundkaik).
In Sweden the traditional church seems to be mostly positive to the gender ideology. Any dissent on this point is actively suppressed. When the LGBTQ+ toleramus gang decides to harrass a church official, the church removes the official (https://www.smp.se/tt-inrikes/kritiserad-kyrkopolitiker-avgar/). In Finland the church is more ambivalent, being internally split and both parties having an uneasy cohabitation in the church. In Estonia, the church leaders mostly don't buy into the gender ideology. One joker in the church council suggested that maybe the church could register gender-neutral marriages for the state and go on to bless scriptural marriages, but the council decided to be more principled and pull back from the business of state marriages altogether.
In Catholic countries, it is common that the church does not serve the state function of registering marriages. Registering the marriage for state census is one ceremony and getting married (and blessed) by the priest an entirely different ceremony in Catholic countries, different from Lutheran priests performing the ceremony first and then filing a form to register it for the state census. The pope seems to be fully determined to hold on to the business of marriage and accommodate gays and other "who am I to judge?" folks. In the current pope's mind, non-Catholic as he is, the church is all for all sorts of ceremonies for the sake of ceremonies, which happens to align with the gender ideologues. The gender ideologues never cared about marriage and rights and equality, but about celebrating their own narcissism, somewhat in the manner that the Catholic church is doing.
Instead of trying to accommodate the irrational gender ideology, I think that the state should register households instead of marriages. When you live together, you can be registered as a household and get the inheritance privileges accordingly (because this is the only tangible "right" marriage registration ever gave to people). This should make everybody happy, polyamorous bis and whatever. Except it would not, because the gender ideologues never were happy when things were rational. They never had a rational argument for their case, but went on to win the political lobby. They won the political lobby because it did not occur to the "traditional values" camp that the perfectly reasonable state of affairs could be overturned for something less than reasonable. Moreover, the state of affairs with "traditional marriage" was not something overly desirable for people. It's been the case for about half a century now that about half or more than half of children are born outside marriage, indicating that marriage is not seen as any sort of desirable right, so nobody stood up to defend it. On the other hand, the irrational undermining of it (while rhetorically claiming to equalise or promote it) does have the effect of stirring up emotions to irrationally defend the traditional marriage — which is very welcome for the gender ideology crowd as they can play the victim.
The Lutheran church of Estonia made the reasonable choice. They did not go against scripture, but also refrained from playing into the victim mentality of the gay, queer and trans toleramuses. The church's role has already been reduced to next to nothing in society and it is in line with this fact to step aside from functions that have ceased to function. They are not going the way of the church of Sweden trying to keep serving the state when the state has succumbed to values and ideologies that the church cannot align with.