[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-July-01, 10:11, said:

Unless you're a strict Libertarian, the fact that it doesn't infringe other people is not persuasive on its own. Some people still believe that certain immoral acts should also be illegal. Suicide doesn't infringe anyone's rights, but we outlaw that, too.

In principle we do. But are people really charged with attempted suicide? And sentenced if found guilty? I think it is a similar to other morality laws which are still on the books but are not enforced.

But in general, yes, infringing rights of others is not the only basis for criminalizing acts. But is a major one.

barmar, on 2013-July-01, 10:11, said:

Well, it's a simple fact that many people form some of their moral judgements from their religious background. By the time they're making decisions about who to vote for, their morals are set, and they no longer think of them as purely religious arguments.

What I think happens in many religious people's minds is this: If an edict in the Bible is consistent with their beliefs, they think "Of course the Bible says so, it's obviously true". But when it disagrees with them, it's "an obsolete myth" or "just a metaphor".

Agree and +1.

[onoway]

billw55, on 2013-July-01, 10:26, said:

In principle we do. But are people really charged with attempted suicide? And sentenced if found guilty? I think it is a similar to other morality laws which are still on the books but are not enforced.

But in general, yes, infringing rights of others is not the only basis for criminalizing acts. But is a major one.


Agree and +1.

fwiw, people may not get charged with attempted suicide but in most places I believe they are often if not always incarcerated for an undetermined amount of time, even if it is a hospital rather than jail, or at least that was case until recently. This is probably not the case where assisted suicide is legal, no idea.

I think the idea of marriage was always strongly tied to the producing and subsequent raising of children, which of course at least the first is problematical, so to speak, with same sex marriages. I think that's the basis for much of the vague feeling of unease that many anti same sex marriage people have.

I also think that the idea of a 5 year renewable term is an absolutely horrendous idea IF children are involved. It's absolutely unacceptable that they should be regarded as a sort of extension of the discussion about who gets the living room furniture. What a way to teach (or rather dismiss) the concepts of commitment and responsibility! What a way to create a constant sense of insecurity!

If no kids are involved then who cares but children need to be given at least an iota of respect and consideration even if the parents are incapable of loving them. Being an adult should mean more than having lived x number of years.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-July-01, 10:26, said:

In principle we do. But are people really charged with attempted suicide? And sentenced if found guilty? I think it is a similar to other morality laws which are still on the books but are not enforced.

If I recall correctly, in British law in the 1600s or 1700s, suicide was a crime punishible by death. I don't know about attempted suicide.

[billw55]

onoway, on 2013-July-01, 11:12, said:

I think the idea of marriage was always strongly tied to the producing and subsequent raising of children, which of course at least the first is problematical, so to speak, with same sex marriages. I think that's the basis for much of the vague feeling of unease that many anti same sex marriage people have.

Ah yes, the equally absurd procreation argument. By that logic (not yours, I know), we would have to ban marriage of postmenopausal women, infertile men or women, and also those childless by choice, or who intend to adopt.

onoway, on 2013-July-01, 11:12, said:

I also think that the idea of a 5 year renewable term is an absolutely horrendous idea IF children are involved. It's absolutely unacceptable that they should be regarded as a sort of extension of the discussion about who gets the living room furniture. What a way to teach (or rather dismiss) the concepts of commitment and responsibility! What a way to create a constant sense of insecurity!

If no kids are involved then who cares but children need to be given at least an iota of respect and consideration even if the parents are incapable of loving them. Being an adult should mean more than having lived x number of years.

Well, I know it's a pretty radical idea, I wasn't really expecting to get followers. And yes, you may be right about children changing the situation. The thing is, marriage is clearly no guarantee of security, responsibility, or commitment. People can and often do get married with little of any of these.

[FM75]

Marriage was invented by religions long before the US existed as a state.
The US recognizes freedom of religion - up to some point. If you doubt this, then research what Utah had to agree to in order to become a state in the union.
The US recognizes freedom to not be religious - at least as the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution.

The idea that laws are "independent" of religion is just a tad preposterous.
The only way to do that is substitutes "morals" for "religion", but what are morals?

At what point does the state draw the line on morality and why?
Should pedophiles have the same rights as homosexuals and heterosexuals?

I would not suggest that it should. But expecting to win the argument on logic won't happen.

[billw55]

FM75, on 2013-July-01, 15:38, said:

At what point does the state draw the line on morality and why?
Should pedophiles have the same rights as homosexuals and heterosexuals?

Obviously not the same. Children cannot consent. Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is a standard slur, resorted to by bigots with nothing better to say.

[FM75]

billw55, on 2013-July-01, 15:59, said:

Obviously not the same. Children cannot consent. Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is a standard slur, resorted to by bigots with nothing better to say.

You meant children are NOT ALLOWED TO CONSENT, which is a legal construct.
There is no slur, but in your eyes.

I will expand a bit more.
Morals are a community construct. Without a community to decide them, no man can be moral or immoral without resorting to a fiat construct such as religion. But what is religion, but a community agreement.

One can of course construct a moral code. Just like one could construct the postulates of geometry. Then one can - based upon that initial construct derive conclusions.
1) The conclusions can be no stronger than the quality of the postulates. Note - an age old problem in geometry hindered the progress of physics until Einstein discovered General Relativity.
2) You also may run into Gödel - which I won't bother to discuss further - but it shook the mathematics world.
3) Any moral code must be inseparable from its community.
4) Debating moral correctness, being a community construct, can't be won by logical arguments - but only by some sort of referendum, in which some majority will always decide and which will have disagreement by some minority.
5) This is far from evident to most, who will continue to construct arguments based most commonly upon their biases, but who nonetheless will couch the argument as a logical one.

[Winstonm]

FM75, on 2013-July-01, 15:38, said:

Marriage was invented by religions long before the US existed as a state.

What is once was should have no bearing on what it is now, IMO. There is no doubt that marriage is a legal contract, and that the state determines who has the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies.

By the same token, mankind was a bit of ooze in the primordial slime, but that does not mean that he is the same slime today as then.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2013-July-01, 15:59, said:

Obviously not the same. Children cannot consent. Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is a standard slur, resorted to by bigots with nothing better to say.

Agree with the first point, not totally with the second, it may have something to do with the uncomfortably large number of priests abusing boys.

[dwar0123]

FM75, on 2013-July-01, 15:38, said:

Marriage was invented by religions long before the US existed as a state.

BullSh!t

Marriage was invented long before the US existed as a state, true but don't give religion any credit. They might have co-opted it before the US existed as a state, but they did not invent it.

Quote

The US recognizes freedom of religion - up to some point. If you doubt this, then research what Utah had to agree to in order to become a state in the union.
The US recognizes freedom to not be religious - at least as the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution.

The idea that laws are "independent" of religion is just a tad preposterous.
The only way to do that is substitutes "morals" for "religion", but what are morals?

At what point does the state draw the line on morality and why?
Should pedophiles have the same rights as homosexuals and heterosexuals?

I would not suggest that it should. But expecting to win the argument on logic won't happen.

You are treating language in absolute terms. When people say laws are independent of religion they mean relative to what ever they are implicitly comparing it too. Not in an absolute sense, as that is of course preposterous and thus not what they meant!

[kenberg]

As for religion, I was brought up in Minnesota where it is generally thought that the only reason that "Thou shalt mind thine own business" is not in the Ten Commandments is because God thought it was too obvious to need saying.
This applies when everyone involved is an adult.

Inevitably with full marriage equality, there are issues regarding the raising of chidren. If I were all powerful, every child would be brought up in a happy home with a loving mother and father and an adequate income. But dream on. In the one same sex plus child situation that I am close to, the child is growing up just fine. Actually much better than many kids, from what I have seen.

I guess I am saying that I cannot see a reason in the world that two men or two women cannot live together in a married state. When it comes to kids I don't think that the answer is so self-evident, I think anyone of any ideology, pro or con or whatever, should keep an open mind, but from my observations and experience it is not a problem. Well, parents are a problem for any kid, we all had to put up with having parents, but I don't think that gay parents are more of a problem than other parents.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2013-July-01, 09:40, said:

They don't really have all that much to do with it. Ministers are approved to perform the ceremony, and that's about it as far as the law is concerned. And I see no need to change that.

Not what I meant. See below.

Trinidad, on 2013-July-01, 09:47, said:

Well, maybe I should limit myself to my own experience:

In my wedding (and I asked my wife to check), church or religion had nothing to do with it. When we talked about it now we both said that we would have interrupted the ceremony if anything with church or God or the FSM would have entered the ceremony, something like: "Your honor, could we please do that again without the G-word?".

But I guess what you mean is that religion has a major influence on the politics regarding marriage. And that is a completely different thing. Maybe politics should -just for fun- threaten to do the same to religion sometimes.

Yes, that's just what I mean.

[Codo]

dwar0123, on 2013-July-01, 18:20, said:

BullSh!t

Marriage was invented long before the US existed as a state, true but don't give religion any credit. They might have co-opted it before the US existed as a state, but they did not invent it.

Do you mind to tell me who invited it then?

Besides this: It is obviously ridicolous to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage on a pure logical basis.
We are all- being religious or not- kids of our enviroment and our education. So f.e. there is no logical argument why there shouldn't be more then two persons being married to each other. In fact this is allowed in more then one society, but not in our.
You can allow or disallow this on the same logical reasons you have for gay marriages.But nobody- well nearly nobody- fights for the right to have more then one husband/wife... It is no case of right or wrong, it is just how much the majority accepts the behaviour of the minority.
The moral changes, so nowadays being gay is fine again at least in most western states- as it had been in different times before. But face the truth: There are 90 % straight people and 10 % gay people. So maybe, the time will change again, as it did before. Unluckily, society is not always reaching it goals ind defending the rights of minority.

If you read in this text that I wish the times should change again, you have misunderstood what I tried to say.

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-01, 17:02, said:

Agree with the first point, not totally with the second, it may have something to do with the uncomfortably large number of priests abusing boys.

Yes, some pedophiles choose same-gender victims. Some choose opposite-gender victims. Some priests and ministers are pedophiles, some aren't. None of this has any bearing on the character or rights of non-criminals.

[blackshoe]

Codo, on 2013-July-02, 03:11, said:

Do you mind to tell me who invited it then?

Fred Flintstone invented marriage when he whacked Wilma on the head and dragged her off to his cave.

Next question!

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2013-July-01, 19:27, said:

As for religion, I was brought up in Minnesota where it is generally thought that the only reason that "Thou shalt mind thine own business" is not in the Ten Commandments is because God thought it was too obvious to need saying.
This applies when everyone involved is an adult.

Inevitably with full marriage equality, there are issues regarding the raising of chidren. If I were all powerful, every child would be brought up in a happy home with a loving mother and father and an adequate income. But dream on. In the one same sex plus child situation that I am close to, the child is growing up just fine. Actually much better than many kids, from what I have seen.

I guess I am saying that I cannot see a reason in the world that two men or two women cannot live together in a married state. When it comes to kids I don't think that the answer is so self-evident, I think anyone of any ideology, pro or con or whatever, should keep an open mind, but from my observations and experience it is not a problem. Well, parents are a problem for any kid, we all had to put up with having parents, but I don't think that gay parents are more of a problem than other parents.

And studies back you up. Children raised by two same-gender parents are no worse off than those raised by two opposite-gender parents. Another strike for the rights opposers. Not that they care about facts.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-01, 17:02, said:

Agree with the first point, not totally with the second, it may have something to do with the uncomfortably large number of priests abusing boys.

My understanding is that the relationship between priests and boys is a function of opportunity.

For example, historically acting as an alter servers in Catholic Church was restricted to males.
Females are currently allowed to act as alter servers, but there is still a substantial bias.

I used to serve as an acolyte back when I attended Lutheran services.
I can't recall a seeing a female acolyte (even though one of our pastor's was a woman)

[barmar]

Codo, on 2013-July-02, 03:11, said:

Do you mind to tell me who invited it then?

It's hard to say for sure. Wikipedia says that the institution predates recorded history, and Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit". It seems to be basically an institutionalization of the long-standing practice of monogamy, and then became a form of commerce -- there was the practice of dowry, the woman was viewed as being transferred from the family she grew up in to her husband's family, and sometimes marriages were used to resolve conflicts between tribes or nations.

As organized religion took hold, it naturally coopted this practice that had already existed, just as it did most other aspects of life and society. But the Roman Catholic Church didn't require that marriages be officiated by a priest until the 16th century.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2013-July-02, 12:05, said:

It seems to be basically an institutionalization of the long-standing practice of monogamy, and then became a form of commerce -- there was the practice of dowry, the woman was viewed as being transferred from the family she grew up in to her husband's family, and sometimes marriages were used to resolve conflicts between tribes or nations.

What "long standing tradition of monogamy"?

My impression is that love, monogamy, etc. are relatively short lived social constructs. Even within countries where the Christian church dominates I suspect that monogamy is more of an ideal rather than a common practice. If we stretch our wings a bit further and consider areas like China, India, Africa, is seems pretty clear that polygyny is a much more "normal" state of affairs.

There is long standing tradition that it is desirable for women to be "pure", however, I think that this has to do with questions related to succession.

[barmar]

Humans are generally monogamous, but we stray and cheat. Harems are mostly a privilege for the elite, the majority of people form relatively stable pairs.

High rates of divorce are a very recent phenomenon.