Holy, shit.... Alabama.
Holy, shit.... Alabama.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
I was getting at that morality based legislation isn't appropriate. Ie if someone were to say wearing fur is murder and push for laws to ban it would you be opposed to it? It is an example of morality based legislation, one person's moral perspective enforced over others for no real gain other than appeasement of that person's values. The same way a law stating that no one should work on Sunday shouldn't be passed. It doesn't provide much gain it only enforces some people's moral perspective over others.Originally Posted by GGT
Huh?I don't think religion should have anything to do with creating laws. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers understood that.
Even atheists can see if something is right or wrong.
The second part was my wondering if you feel that religious moral laws should be particularity discriminated against and censured as opposed to other secular based moral laws. IE passing a law outlawing fur for moral reasons would be OK as long as it isn't religious moral reasons. In other words do you think people who base their beliefs on religious teachings should be discriminated against in particular?
Of course we should discriminate against their process. What kind of a ridiculous question is that? Sheesh.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Why? Why should I hold your own ridiculous moral legislating any higher than I hold theirs? Your social morality is as baseless as their religious morality, Minx.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If Hitler and science both say that water boils at 100 deg C should we support Hitler and try to use his notions to explore and explain our world? If Pol Pot and maths both decree that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the other two sides, should we accept "Pol pot says so" as a valid answer on a maths test?
But okay, sure, if you want a world where the law rejects all moral and ethical notions including basic tenets such as equality of human worth, respect for human life and dignity, freedom from oppression, tyranny, torture, discrimination, mutilation, abuse etc just so that you can stick it to both secular humanism and all religions at the same time then I guess that's your prerogative but I find it pretty frickin weird.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And what do you do when some of those morals contradict other morals (as they frequently do)?
Hope is the denial of reality
So if someone were to say this: "I think as humans we should respect all human life. I think the death penalty is morally wrong and euthanasia should remain outlawed." You would say the argument is appropriate in the public domain and should be considered.
But if someone argues the *same* thing but indicates that they hold these beliefs because of their belief in God it should not be in the public domain and you would think less of the argument simply because of the rational?
Hmm under that rational I guess we can have religious based laws as long as no one says that they are religious based laws. (We support making it illegal to work on Sunday cus... uh science says that people need a day off to recharge their batteries!)
Your morality isn't secular humanism. You pretend it is to try and grant your personal opinions and beliefs greater validity. Even if they were, bad conclusions are bad conclusions, whether you derive them from a magical man in the sky or GIGO "logical" reasoning. All your stance does is insist that your mind is better than that of some dead guy whose reasoning and philosophy were cast through religious metaphors as befit the context of their time.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 01-25-2015 at 06:17 PM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't quite understand why this is relevant at all to the discussion.
Congratulations America
How so? How one views the use of morality in legislation is very relevant to the discussion.
Marriage is not a moral issue as far as I am concerned. People who think it is can go behind the woodshed and fuck themselves with a broomstick.
Congratulations America
Succinctly put.
Marriage is a contract.
Can they then marry said broomstick?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I think they should be institutionalized as a danger to themselves and their surroundings. Thus being unable to enter into a valid agreement. That would make marriage a not-viable option.
The Alabama quarter just dropped; it would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court grants a stay. If it doesn't (provided one is asked for) then it's pretty clear what ruling we may expect in June.
If not we're at 37 out of 50.
Congratulations America
What's happened in Alabama? Don't get the phrase Alabama quarter, but I'm assuming it means they've legalised it too?
Way up in this topic lolli mentioned Alabama. I saw it, but strangely enough didn't get why she mentioned it. Turns out that in a week or so Alabama could become no 37.
Congratulations America
I know its not going to come to that, but we're nearly at the proportion of states required for a Constitutional Amendment now (38).
You're missing the part where an amendment has to be passed by legislatures, while most of these legalizations are taking place by the courts.
Hope is the denial of reality
I know I was just putting the proportion into context as a comparison.
Bacon is gay:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ntial-2016-run
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hm, I'll take bacon and shrimp separately. Don't think they go well together. A bacon cheeseburger on the other hand...
Hope is the denial of reality
Actually I think its an apt analogy even if he's interpreting it wrong.
Jews may not like bacon but its still legal and those enjoy bacon can have it.
Many religions may not like alcohol (which he also mentions) but its legal and those who want can partake in a drink.
His religion may not like gay marriage, but it should be just as legal as bacon and alcohol.
Until he start trying to criminalise bacon, alcohol and everything else criminalising gays is indefensible.
Seems like Alabama is in.
Congratulations America
This wave of compulsion is surely healthy for gay rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Well, unless you intend to be part of some future backlash against gay marriage or gay rights, I'd say that we're reaching the point where you need to just get over it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
There was no backlash years ago to the case that ended sodomy laws and I can't see there being a backlash if the legal battle against equal marriage ends this year.
Oh yeah, the flagrant discrimination was so much more desireable. Really a badge of honor for a true democratic society.
Congratulations America
There was, however, a pretty clear backlash against gay marriage through legislative/popular democracy action when the first few states legalized it. Minor, as backlash goes, but the pushback was quite evident.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Merely more proof that it's wrong to let civil rights of minorities be the play thing of the majority. Pure democracy too often is little more than a tyranny of the majority. I see first hand proof of that in Turkey; as the country became more democratic it actuallly became less free.
Congratulations America
Temporarily. Which has now been not just reversed but pushed much further than prior to then.
Equality under the law for gays has belatedly become normal, not abnormal. To be honest I didn't think it would happen this quickly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
