2004 Presidential Election.

[Instar]

Jack Simth said:
Bearing in mind, that this is a question of ethics, and as such is fundamentally unarguable on several levels, here is a roundabout and incomplete attempt at one:

Let's start with something else. Something that the supermajority...

Argumentum ad populum. logical fallacy.

Jack Simth said:
...of people believe is wrong: Murder. Murder is illeagal. ...

No, murder is a wrongful killing. By definition, murder is wrong. Sorry to argue semantics, but that is the correct definition.

Jack Simth said:
...It is also called wrong in the Bible. ...

Relevance?

Jack Simth said:
... Obviously, murder is a religious issue, ...

No, actually, it is not.

Jack Simth said:
and the state has no right to intervene. Perhaps it is an ethical issue, instead. With ethics, things ultimately lie on fundamental, unproveable assumptions ...

Not so. Ethics makes very few assumptions. The assumptions made in ethics usually pass the reasonable person test, that is, thigns a sane person would agree to.

Jack Simth said:
...(some samples: with Kant's "pure logic", one must first assume: 1) that logic is applicable to ethics, 2) that "better" is something to be strived for, and 3) Kant's definition of what has intrinsic value; with self-interest or extended self-interest ethics, one must first assume that personal consequences matter in questions of ethics [not a given in all schools of ethics]; "feels good" ethics usually assume that it either doesn't matter anyway or that nature/God/whatever has provided the ultimate guide when producing your feelings (or that it is an evolutionary process, and if your ethics are flawed, they are supposed to cause you problems), or some variant; with God centered ethics, even assuming that the existence of God and every event statement in the Bible is wholly accurate in every detail, one first needs to assume that the created ethically ought to obey the rules laid out by the Creator; et cetera; et cetera), which are religion-like in nature. Murder penalties are therefore unconstitutional, and thus the state has no right to interfere on that basis.

You can replace "murder" in the above with virtually anything that's illeagal (with minor tweaks to the rest of the text), really - (in no particular order) rape, incest, theft, drug abuse, tax evasion, kiddie porn, gay marriage, or prostitution, to name a few. The above is complete bull, of course. But how can the case be argued that it IS bull? More specifically, can you debunk the above for murder, rape, incest, theft, kiddie porn, et cetera without also debunking the above your favorite issue: gay marriage, especially considering that it uses a good portion of the same basic approach that you used to say that gay marriage should be okay?

This is crap dressed up as philosophical musings. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you misconstrue ethics completely.

Jack Simth said:

That is one hypothesis. It isn't proven, however.

You're saying that one can equivocate murder with gay marriage. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

[Jack Simth]

Instar said:

Argumentum ad populum. logical fallacy.

So choosing a starting point where most there is a high probability of a match as a starting point to argue from is automatically a fallacy? Interesting definition you have there.

Instar said:

No, murder is a wrongful killing. By definition, murder is wrong. Sorry to argue semantics, but that is the correct definition.

A minor point of semantics there - call it randomly killing someone is wrong. It's pretty immaterial nit-picking.

Instar said:

Relevance?

No, actually, it is not.

Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation - Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures.

Instar said:

Not so. Ethics makes very few assumptions.

I didn't say they made many of them; I said they made Fundamental assumptions; the use of fundamental usually implies a small number of them.

Instar said: The assumptions made in ethics usually pass the reasonable person test, that is, thigns a sane person would agree to.

Except, of course, that many of the schools of ethics disagree on those selfsame assumptions - Kantian ethics would ignore feelings as much as possible, on the assumption that reason is the best guide to ethics, as it is all that separates man from beast, and that nature hasn't provided an essentially perfect guide in our emotions. Meanwhile, there are a number of emotional schools of ethics that take the exact opposite approach, saying let your feelings guide you. Both types of school contain reasonable people, yet they can easily disagree on their assumptions. Moreover, they can never really convince each other, as both cases are fairly reasonable and there can't really be any true evidence on such a fundamental level. Further, they come to different conclusions in the end - sure, they all agree on the obvious things (a fourty-year old man in good health is a person; a rock is not), but they disagree on the nitty-gritty (Are monkeys people? Are unborn human children? Eating meat okay? Be a vegitarian? A veagan?).

Instar said:

This is crap dressed up as philosophical musings. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you misconstrue ethics completely.

Being insulting now? Is that what you are reduced to? There's no point in continuing this, then, is there?

[Instar]

Jack Simth said:

So choosing a starting point where most there is a high probability of a match as a starting point to argue from is automatically a fallacy? Interesting definition you have there.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Just because 99% of people agree that something is right/wrong does not make them right. And I don't understand what the heck you wrote there at all.

Jack Simth said:
A minor point of semantics there - call it randomly killing someone is wrong. It's pretty immaterial nit-picking.

Like I said, sorry. But if we are to talk about philosophical ideas and such, we must use proper terminology and definitions. It is a habit from writing my philosophy papers.
[quote]
Jack Simth said:

Jack Simth said:
Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation

Yes, I realize that now.

Jack Simth said:
- Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures.

I didn't say they made many of them; I said they made Fundamental assumptions; the use of fundamental usually implies a small number of them.

Except, of course, that many of the schools of ethics disagree on those selfsame assumptions - Kantian ethics would ignore feelings as much as possible, on the assumption that reason is the best guide to ethics, as it is all that separates man from beast, and that nature hasn't provided an essentially perfect guide in our emotions. Meanwhile, there are a number of emotional schools of ethics that take the exact opposite approach, saying let your feelings guide you. Both types of school contain reasonable people, yet they can easily disagree on their assumptions. Moreover, they can never really convince each other, as both cases are fairly reasonable and there can't really be any true evidence on such a fundamental level. Further, they come to different conclusions in the end - sure, they all agree on the obvious things (a fourty-year old man in good health is a person; a rock is not), but they disagree on the nitty-gritty (Are monkeys people? Are unborn human children? Eating meat okay? Be a vegitarian? A veagan?).

Being insulting now? Is that what you are reduced to? There's no point in continuing this, then, is there?

Well, I "called it as I saw it". With the ridiculous equivocation you were making (gay marriage is as bad as murder somehow), there wasn't a shred of decent logic there.

I would say that gay marriage is ok, because of Rule Utilitarianism and the Liberty Principles. There is not enough justification to make it illegal (Liberty Principles). I cannot think of a good ethical system that would condemn it.

[Jack Simth]

Instar: You ceased to be civil so I ceased to participate in this discussion. Have a nice day.

[Instar]

Jack Simth said:
Instar: You ceased to be civil so I ceased to participate in this discussion. Have a nice day.

Whatever you want, but realize this: none of your arguments against gay marriage work. Your position against it is wrong.

[Will]

Jack Simth said:
Apparently you missed a chunk of the conversation - Will was basically saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to restrict marriage to one man and one woman on the basis that it was a religious issue; it's a religious issue because it is defined Biblically. Murder is also defined Biblically, and it's not an strickly cultural issue because there are vastly different definitions of it in different cultures.

Jack, sorry, you must have missed a chunk of the conversation. I've been saying that the State shouldn't be restrictive of its definition of marriage, because it is not really a religious issue. The workings of marriage for a government have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Just because religion happens to deal with the same concept doesn't mean you get to force your religion's concepts on everyone else. That's why the whole "respecting the establishment thereof" bit was in the First Amendment. I'm sure you would be in an uproar if the situation was reversed, and Somebody Else's Religion(tm) was used by the government to dictate how your life could be led contrary to your religion.

The so-called social stability problem is a non-issue, so there is no reason for a gay marriage ban unless it is religious, or rooted in ignorance. The latter is simply wrong because it has no basis. The former is essentially imposing segments of a religion on people who do not need or want to accept that religion. In other words, it is not harming you if what you consider an immoral action is legal, but it does harm same-sex couples if what they consider moral and good is made illegal based on Someone Else's Religion(tm).

And Jack, I don't see how Instar was not civil to you. Perhaps not civil to your arguments, but IMHO those arguments are not very good ones. I've heard them all before, they weren't good then, they aren't good now, and frankly, the position does not deserve respect. That does not mean the person is not respected. If I am missing a personal attack in there somewhere, please point it out, but as of this moment, I don't see it.

[tesco samoa]

i agree will.

To me govn't should only have one rule reguarding people. And that is their is only one class of people its citizens. They are equal in all.

For a govn't to step in and state that gay marrages should be Banned is to state there are 2 classes of people. This is wrong.

For a religion to state it will not marry 2 people of the same sex. That is their decision.


A couples deserve to be equal. And deserve to be entitled to the same laws and protection. Failure to do so is a failure of the government and of the society that supports that government.

The real question is everyone equal. Yes or No.

If not then you have segeration. Which is wrong.

[Atrocities]

I just want to keep the rights I do have and stop the piliferation of "Politically Correct" laws that do little more than restrict or abolish the rights I do have.

I believe people are people and that it is none of my business and therefore by assocation, none of societies business who or whom people choose to live their lives with. I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women, however gay couples should, if they do not already, have the same consititutional rights that married couples have if they choose to spend the rest of their lives together. Civil unions are a perfect match for this. Marrage is between a man and a women, Civil unions are between gay couples. This absurd notion that if we allow civil unions that people will marry their cat or dog is as I said, absurd. Any one who even remotely believes this would happen needs to seek immedate mental health assistance.

I am pro-gun, and that was my major issue with Senator Kerry. I am of those who voted the issue over the man in this election.

[Instar]

"have the same consititutional rights that married couples "
they dont in most states
"I agree that the concept of marrage should be defined as between a man anda women"
why?
the government ought to call them all civil unions, and marriages be done in a church

[Gandalf Parker]

Apparently those who invented the word "marriage" want to define it. Its interesting that these proceedings and all of the definitions being tossed around are being closely watched by the Mormons (remember that they faught a similar battle about state definition of marriage and lost it).

While I see why gays might wish for marriage to be recognized for them, most that I know would be thrilled to see equal unions be recognized. How many times have we all heard the phrase "immeadiate family only"? It sucks to go to the hospital and be told that you cant see your partner, or hear whats wrong, or sit in agony while the hospital tries to find a relative so they can get permission to do some life-saving act, or not be able to carry out their dying wishes.

Of course, as soon as that obviously important goal is reached, many of them would then move on to get marriage changed because they want to be married.