California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, and has nothing to do with anything that i based my arguments on.




I would like to add this has been a successful thread by PPR's standards.

It's certainly got people talking...


[Now le kiwi is le tired, so to bed she doth go...]

Can we stop saying that "family and marriage" have been "true for millenia" if we're not going to acknowledge the many ways in which these concepts have been different across time and location?

No, because if you look at the cultures of the major religions, despite the fact that women were treated like merchandise, dowries, etc. in past ages by certain peoples, a child out of wedlock would have been an outcast. Such a woman who had a child would be considered a whore. Fornication was something severely punished.

Yes, scientific studies don't neccesarily lead to ethical conclusions, however, it helps to understand nature and things in a better and the best accurate way possible that let's us evolve and to treat things in a better way, when ethics are established from social changes, etc, Which are not directly linked but I believe it has had something to do with it and it helps, so it must be linked indirectly at least. Do ethics have scientific value? from natural science, perhaps not, but I believe it does when it comes to social science.

I can think of some examples: psychiatry and psychology, science studies gave us a more accurate description and understanding about what happens to people who suffer from mental conditions, therefore, they are getting a treatment that fits more their needs (not 100% perfect of course), if humanity wouldn't have such knowledge and sticked with old traditions like, demonic possesions, then, we can see the difference.

Same issue when it comes to gender, race, and sexual orientation. When the theory of evolution seems to give some explanations about homosexuality, I start to think of the problem of the rejection of evolution from some religious grounds, and when any society or government is based completely and solely on religious dogma with a complete certainty, that is very dangerous. So, secularism works better and give more fairness in my view.

That's why the SHOULD thing, in my post

Fairness to whom? Secularity people or religious people?

Tyranny of the Majority isn't Democracy, it's a perversion of Democracy.

"Marriage" is a social construct and thus it is anything society says it is. Tradition doesn't matter.

well, tyranny of the majority is pure democracy. the thing is, though, we (the citizens of the USA) AREN'T supposed to be a pure democracy. it's supposed to be guaranteed, inalienable rights granted by the constitution.

Well, racism, bigotry, and violence have been acceptable to society in the past. Are you talking just about what our current society rejects, or are you setting down a general principle for society? The reason I ask is because anything and everything could be considered either acceptable or unacceptable to society from a theoretical standpoint, the issue is what you think about those theoretical problems.


Umm..... oscuria, I was not just saying "taxes, and drafting", I was saying "taxes and drafting" for causes you don't believe in, for wars you consider unjust or cruel, for policies that go against what you believe in, etc. If it were just taxes and drafts in a very generic sense then all I'd be asking is if you were an anarchist, and I know you aren't.


I know your views are acceptable under the rules of society, and I would not try to argue from such a perspective. Even if your views were illegal, would that mean that you would reject them?


Who defines unacceptable? I suppose you have already defined it already as not leading to deaths. By that standard though, would you call for the legalization of a number of illegal drugs in order to stop deaths by drug runners and law breakers? After all, some scholars have concluded that the deaths caused by illegalizing drugs is likely greater than if the drugs were legal.


Well, not necessarily. They consider those with opposite views tyrannical because the views are opposite to them. You are right, the term is thrown around too often by people who fail to recognize the issues of individual liberty disrupted by their own views.


I would say that not allowing something is tyranny in most cases, but as I already stated, tyranny is subjective.

I'm trying to understand this. What does a society create? What is tradition built upon?

I look towards my Eastern brethren and see nothing but a society enriched by its tradition, its tradition kept alive by its society.





What you are looking for is Polity. Democracy is not pretty. Democracy is not righteous.


You would not hesitate to remove things which are against you, yet you consider me a tyrant.

"the only tradition that's worth keeping is the one you make up yourself."

-doug stanhope

Both.

the problem is that the religious people are asking for more than their share and are looking to take other people's piece too.

1) Yes. Violence, racism, and bigotry are things we can fall into any time. I can see right now that many Americans still feel the need to resort to such acts when it concerns an immigrant (muslims, latin americans).

We know that violating a person is a violation of the self, but how can marriage be comparable?


2) I kind of figured, but I went with whatever came to mind first. I don't consider what you are trying to imply related to same-sex marriage. Killing a person or causing poverty is not at all similar to denying an act that is understood to be between a man and a woman.


3) It depends on what the illegality of my view was and how much in control I was over them. I believe drugs should remain illegal but I see no harm in a person smoking marijuana as long as alcohol and tobacco remains free. Either ban the latter the two, or allow the limited use of marijuana. But I personally do not use marijuana.

You must question me on things that are illegal, I try not to break laws.


4) I kind of answered this above. I don't believe the War on Drugs is successful, it isn't. Yet that doesn't mean we should proliferate its use. I see many people abusing alcohol as it is, many of them teenagers. If it was legal, who is to stop them considering nothing is stopping them from drinking? I'd rather not give my "solution."


5) I understand your definition of tyranny, but I still think it is too strong of a word to be considered such. Perhaps intolerable is a better application?

Not always true. There are militant atheists who feel the need to shoot down anything that has even an ounce of weight to do with religion (whether or not the people have forgotten its relation to religion).