User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 223

  1. #51
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    How can a religious rule not have a moral basis?

    And as for the relationshio between religion and law, that's long been established within American legal traditions.

    In another thread on Church-state relations, I cited excerpts from the legal lectures of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson of 1791; where he meditated upon the meaning and foundations of the recently ratified Constitution(of which he was a principal author of, second only to Madison). Records show that George Washington was in attendence of many of these lectures.

    Here's what he states concerning the relationship between secular and religious laws:


    Works of James Wilson
    What about the other people who signed the constitution? While we're trying to follow a writer's-motives approach to interpreting constitutional guidelines, should we hold a sceance for everyone else in the constitutional convention and ask them what they think? No matter who wrote the thing, thier opinions are just as important as Washington's....or we could just not go there.

    so what if Washington thought this or that. We live in a modern era where, unlike the founding fathers, we truly respect religious freedom, and we don't pass religion-laws.

    And yes, of course a religious rule might not have a moral basis. How? I dunno, how are some of the other leviticus instructions just as silly as the gay sex one? Here's an idea. The bible didn't fall out of the sky, it was written by a bunch of humans just as flawed as the rest of us who weren't right about everything.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    More than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities are denied to gay and lesbian couples. They include, but are not limited to:

    - The right to have visitation rights when his/her partner falls ill

    - The right to make decisions on a partnerís behalf in a medical emergency

    - The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner

    -The right to share a room in a nursing home

    - Protections for families of crime victims, including the right to notice and information, to testify at sentencing and parole hearings, and to receive mental health services

    - Family health and auto insurance policies

    -After death of partner, the right to take a forced share of the estate, staying in the family home through transition protections, receiving allowances from the estate to meet current expenses, and being allowed to retain personal effects, personal property of sentimental value, and the right to drive the family car.

    -After the death of partner, the right to automatic inheritance rights, spousal preference for administering the estate, and taking care of a loved oneís remains

    -The right to ensure that his or her partnerís desire to make an anatomical gift is fulfilled if opposed by partnerís next of kin

    -The right to bring claims of wrongful death or loss of consortium when a loved oneís death results from wrongdoings

    -The right of the partner of a police officer/firefighter who was killed on the job to have access to line of duty benefits

    -The right to automatically receive wages due partner at the time of his or her death

    -The right to receive dependency benefits from the workerís compensation system or accidental death benefits from the retirement system if partner is injured or killed

    -The right for a person who is retiring to provide their pension to their surviving partner

    -The right to enter into surrogacy arrangements

    -The right to petition for partner to immigrate

    -The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy, or other means etc.

    This is why I don't support civil unions (from a purely legalistic pov):

    Marriage confers certain legal rights as given by the state. It is not a means of obtaining mass recognition for a relationship because there are certain people who will always disapprove of any relationship, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

    Therefore this is a legal and rights issue and is not relevant to popular opinion. The constitution serves as a means of protecting the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, hence its decision should be binding. This issue of "minority rights" is also why people often equate gay rights with racial rights and basic individual rights. Personally, I don't see the difference, too.

    While religions may object to recognition of the marriage, this has nothing to do with the state because there is (theoretically at least) a separation of church and state.

    "State marriages" should be available for all as a fundamental right. Most people here agree with this. (For those who don't agree, you should read John Rawls' legal and political philosophy to remove your head from your butt.)

    These are normally called "civil unions", but I oppose this.

    The reasons being that "civil unions", being "separate and equal" from the institution of marriage, often is "separate" but seldom is "equal".

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tml#post399089
    For anyone unsure if there's really a difference between civil unions and marriage.

  3. #53
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    so what if Washington thought this or that. We live in a modern era where, unlike the founding fathers, we truly respect religious freedom, and we don't pass religion-laws.
    Well there's the concept of contunity in terms of our legal concepts and premises.

    And I will add that the concept of religious freedom is religious in origins; in the concept of religion being a matter of free will.

    St. Thomas Aquinas argued that unbelievers were not be forced to convert in the 13th century. Even earlier in the 8th century, Alcuin of York made this argument against Charlemange during the repressions against the pagan Saxons.


    And yes, of course a religious rule might not have a moral basis. How? I dunno, how are some of the other leviticus instructions just as silly as the gay sex one?
    Being silly to 21st century sensibilities doesn't actually disprove its moral basis, nor that it's wrong.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    How can a religious rule not have a moral basis
    Religious rules aren't always moral. They are aesthetic guidelines for the most part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Being silly to 21st century sensibilities doesn't actually disprove its moral basis, nor that it's wrong.
    Nor will works of fiction, prove they are correct.

  5. #55
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Religious rules aren't always moral.
    That doesn't make any sense.
    Nor will works of fiction, prove they are correct.
    There are simply too many faulty assumptions to this argument.

    Namely that a work of fiction cannot advocate a morally correct message; nevermind that an entire genre of literature - fables - are designed for such.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Gabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Well there's the concept of contunity in terms of our legal concepts and premises.

    And I will add that the concept of religious freedom is religious in origins; in the concept of religion being a matter of free will.

    St. Thomas Aquinas argued that unbelievers were not be forced to convert in the 13th century. Even earlier in the 8th century, Alcuin of York made this argument against Charlemange during the repressions against the pagan Saxons.




    Being silly to 21st century sensibilities doesn't actually disprove its moral basis, nor that it's wrong.
    Ok, you obviously would love to get into a big philosophical debate so you can start dropping fancy-sounding philisophical terms and irrelevent historical facts. I can see where you're leading this conversation, so I don't want to have it anymore.

    I think other people and myself have sufficiently explained the importance of gay marriage. I think you should respond to what's been written about that.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That doesn't make any sense.

    There are simply too many faulty assumptions to this argument.

    Namely that a work of fiction cannot advocate a morally correct message; nevermind that an entire genre of literature - fables - are designed for such.
    The rule against homosexuality is aesthetic in nature. Aesthetics aren't morals.

    The question isn't regarding whether or not fiction can espouse morals. Only that, the subjective opinion (morals) are not necessarily correct.

  8. #58
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
    Ok, you obviously would love to get into a big philosophical debate so you can start dropping fancy-sounding philisophical terms and irrelevent historical facts. I can see where your leading this conversation, so I don't want to have it anymore.
    Well if there's one aspect to this debate that interests me, it's the basic assumptions upon which peoples' arguments are based upon. If you're not interested in continuing debating on that aspect, well ok I can understand that.

    I think other people and myself have sufficiently explained the importance of gay marriage. I think you should respond to what's been written about that.
    I have and am responding to what's been written to the best of my abilities. I'll repeat, my qualifications lay more in addressing the basic underlining assumptions of the arguments presented - the arguments behind the arguments so to speak.

  9. #59
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    The rule against homosexuality is aesthetic in nature.
    How so?

    Aesthetics aren't morals.
    They're still connected on many levels - unless one adheres to Aestheticism.

    The question isn't regarding whether or not fiction can espouse morals. Only that, the subjective opinion (morals) are not necessarily correct.
    So morals are just subjective opinions in your view?

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    How so? They're still connected on many levels - unless one adheres to Aestheticism. So morals are just subjective opinions in your view?
    Homosexuality being wrong is an aesthetic argument, because there's no evidence to back up that it's actually negative. Only the opinion that it is.

    In my view, and the definition of the word itself.

    Moral
    adj.
    1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
    2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
    3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
    4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
    5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
    6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

    n.
    1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
    2. Morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.


    What is good or bad? That is subjective interpretation. Everyone is free to determine their own method for how they decide that. You chose feelings. Some choose logic. Regarding laws, they shouldn't be determined by emotions.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2013, 10:30 AM
  2. The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
    By teslashock in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 02:51 PM
  3. whats the big deal about being me?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 07:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO