# Politics and News > World Affairs >  Pro-family groups protest vociferously against one sex marriage and adoption

## Calypso Jones

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8632878.html

now this is amazing.   Europeans, Frenchmen to be exact are protesting the newly passed laws for same sex marriage and adoption by these 'couples'.   The world is indeed turning upside down.

----------


## ptif219

I like it, it shows there may still be hope for France

----------


## Annette

I just don't see how the world is going to end if same sex couples are allowed to marry and adopt children who need a loving home.  Forgive me if I don't join in on the hysteria but I don't think this is the end of civilization.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-28-2013)

----------


## The XL

Who cares?  As long as the state is involved in marriage, gay people will have some sort of legit case for their grievance.  Just get the government out of marriage all together.  Where are my benefits for not being married?  This is discrimination!

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-28-2013),usfan (05-27-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Oh, here we go!

----------


## Calypso Jones

homosexuals are not interested in having equal rights in marriage.  They want to destroy marriage itself.  And as far as the adoption thing goes, you don't know and WE don't know the extent of abuse these children go thru.   Not just physical and mental, but also  emotional and social.  It's just plain ill conceived to allow perverts to adopt children.

----------

ptif219 (05-26-2013)

----------


## Annette

> homosexuals are not interested in having equal rights in marriage.  They want to destroy marriage itself.  And as far as the adoption thing goes, you don't know and WE don't know the extent of abuse these children go thru.   Not just physical and mental, but also  emotional and social.  It's just plain ill conceived to allow perverts to adopt children.


From my observation, it seems like same sex couples are _only_ interested in equal rights in marriage.  And how exactly are they going to 'destroy marriage itself'?  I also don't see how a same sex couple is more likely to abuse a child than any heterosexual couple adopting a child.  Maybe I'm just a little dense so please explain this to me.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-28-2013),The XL (05-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> *homosexuals are not interested in having equal rights in marriage.  They want to destroy marriage itself. * And as far as the adoption thing goes, you don't know and WE don't know the extent of abuse these children go thru.   Not just physical and mental, but also  emotional and social.  It's just plain ill conceived to allow perverts to adopt children.


Conjecture.  It's impossible to speak for a whole group of people, anyway.

How do you know children are in physical an mental danger?  I'm sure a parentless kid would appreciate a home, and it would be preferable to being in an orphanage.  Your post reeks of hate, and lacks facts.

----------


## The XL

> From my observation, it seems like same sex couples are _only_ interested in equal rights in marriage.  And how exactly are they going to 'destroy marriage itself'?  I also don't see how a same sex couple is more likely to abuse a child than any heterosexual couple adopting a child.  Maybe I'm just a little dense so please explain this to me.


You're a lot different than your husband.  A lot more nice and reasonable, a lot more like the way a person of faith should be.  I guess opposites do attract.

----------


## Annette

> Conjecture.  It's impossible to speak for a whole group of people, anyway.
> 
> How are gay people perverts?  How do you know children are in physical an mental danger?  Your post reeks of hate, and lacks facts.


XL, you're right.  It seems that facts are being sacrificed on the altar of blind ideology here.  I keep running into these extreme right wingers who just hate gay people and can't articulate why.  It's perplexing.  None of the gay people I know are perverts in any sense of the word and my husband and I trust our own children to be watched by a lesbien couple that we've known for years.  There's never even a thought they would do something inappropriate.  So I ask again, where is all this fear coming from?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Oh don't drag me into this!  :Sofa:

----------

Annette (05-26-2013)

----------


## ptif219

> I just don't see how the world is going to end if same sex couples are allowed to marry and adopt children who need a loving home.  Forgive me if I don't join in on the hysteria but I don't think this is the end of civilization.


  I don't see how it makes the world better

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013)

----------


## ptif219

> From my observation, it seems like same sex couples are _only_ interested in equal rights in marriage.  And how exactly are they going to 'destroy marriage itself'?  I also don't see how a same sex couple is more likely to abuse a child than any heterosexual couple adopting a child.  Maybe I'm just a little dense so please explain this to me.


  If it was about legal rights they would seek civil unions which would cause less conflict and could give them the legal rights

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I don't see how it makes the world better


With the Left it's never about making the world better, it's about getting their way.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013),ptif219 (05-27-2013)

----------


## Annette

> With the Left it's never about making the world better, it's about getting their way.


Honey, they aren't all leftists, but they seek advocacy on the left because they are so despised on the right.  It's simple logic.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-28-2013)

----------


## Annette

> If it was about legal rights they would seek civil unions which would cause less conflict and could give them the legal rights


Why is it so important to you to keep them out of marriage?  Do you know how absurd it is to propose granting them a de facto marriage but deny them the label?  You all act like if gays use the M word then society as we know it will unravel.   I wish you could see how silly these arguments are.

----------

kilgram (05-26-2013)

----------


## kilgram

Pro-Family LOL Pro-Life LOL I enjoy these names. Really, more absurd they cannot be. And the best it is because they hate life of someone and also hate family, only their own family and they will do a lot of things harming the families, like the Pro-Life and pro-family government that we have now in Spain that is doing everything to destroy both things. But yeah.

----------


## kilgram

> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8632878.html
> 
> now this is amazing.   Europeans, Frenchmen to be exact are protesting the newly passed laws for same sex marriage and adoption by these 'couples'.   The world is indeed turning upside down.


What is amazing? It is what the right in Europe always do. Protesting to remove rights and asking for bigger discrimination, and they are a minority  :Wink:

----------


## pjohns

> Just get the government out of marriage all together.


Amen to that!

----------


## kilgram

> homosexuals are not interested in having equal rights in marriage.  They want to destroy marriage itself.  And as far as the adoption thing goes, you don't know and WE don't know the extent of abuse these children go thru.   Not just physical and mental, but also  emotional and social.  It's just plain ill conceived to allow perverts to adopt children.


The biggest menace to marriage is divorce  :Wink: 

I don't see you protesting against divorce.

----------



----------


## patrickt

I wondered what the thread was about. It was for Kilgram to have a leftist diatribe that has nothing to do with the topic.

I concur that the government should get out of marriage. All Americans should have equal rights under the law and if the government hadn't decided married couples get special privileges then it would be an issue.

Get the government out of marriage and leave that to the churches. If the government insists on giving benefits to families then let them do it with civil unions.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013),usfan (05-27-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> From my observation, it seems like same sex couples are _only_ interested in equal rights in marriage. And how exactly are they going to 'destroy marriage itself'? I also don't see how a same sex couple is more likely to abuse a child than any heterosexual couple adopting a child. Maybe I'm just a little dense so please explain this to me.


I know what the homo marriage lobby wants YOU to think but that is not the truth. They've already stated it. And those not saying it out loud were applauding and signalling their agreement. I'll post the link for ya if that would make any difference which i doubt it will. And i have a question. WHY would catholics support this perversion. WHY do catholics support abortion lovin' baby killin' democrats? What the hell is it? Do you suppose God has turned his back on catholics? Just askin' cause i got catholics in my own family. It's a puzzlement to me.

here it is:

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...a-for-Marriage

----------


## kilgram

> I wondered what the thread was about. It was for Kilgram to have a leftist diatribe that has nothing to do with the topic.
> 
> I concur that the government should get out of marriage. All Americans should have equal rights under the law and if the government hadn't decided married couples get special privileges then it would be an issue.
> 
> Get the government out of marriage and leave that to the churches. If the government insists on giving benefits to families then let them do it with civil unions.


Why to churches only? Marriage is not only religious. And why someone has to recognize a marriage of X church? Do you know why the government is involved in the marriage? Just for legal questions. If you are not legally married you are not.

And about the discrimination of civil unions... No comments. Ah, do you know that in Europe all marriages are civil, and are the only ones that have validity. If I go to a church and this marriage is not inscribed in the civil register it is not valid.

And why do you oppose to the civil marriage? What reasons do you have? What problem? 

And about this, when I see you protesting for the civil marriage and demanding that the government go out of marriage, I am going to believe you. But meanwhile just you are refusing to give the same rights to other kind of couples of adults. That is the fact.

By the way, I suppose that you know that also it shows how friendly is the Catholic church with the fascism and extreme right, no? But well, it is no surprise.

----------


## kilgram

> With the Left it's never about making the world better, it's about getting their way.


Yeah, and give an end to the discrimination is not making the world better  :Wink:  

Making the world better is about... oh removing rights because some freaks(Catholic and extreme right) demand to defend, oh no... their own values, ups they are demanding to do their way, because they pretend to impose on the others their views.

The others don't force to that freaks to marry them or whatever.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Yeah, and give an end to the discrimination is not making the world better  
> 
> Making the world better is about... oh removing rights because some freaks(Catholic and extreme right) demand to defend, oh no... their own values, ups they are demanding to do their way, because they pretend to impose on the others their views.
> 
> The others don't force to that freaks to marry them or whatever.


Your "English" is yet again wanting, but I get the general impression that you disagree with my post and are expressing it with no small degree of disdain.  Am I correct?

----------


## ptif219

> Why is it so important to you to keep them out of marriage?  Do you know how absurd it is to propose granting them a de facto marriage but deny them the label?  You all act like if gays use the M word then society as we know it will unravel.   I wish you could see how silly these arguments are.


  Why is it so important that it be marriage if it is about rights.  this shows it is about attacking the Christians and their seeing marriage as being a moral issue not about benefits from the government

   This shows me this is more about hate for Christians than about benefits

----------


## kilgram

> Your "English" is yet again wanting, but I get the general impression that you disagree with my post and are expressing it with no small degree of disdain.  Am I correct?


It was writting with sarcasm, or at least that was the intention. In summary, my post said that the ones that try to force their views on the others are the extreme right and the Catholics(that I called freaks).

They want to force into the others to follow their way and to restrict rights of other people that are not doing anything wrong or bad. They just try to force other people to live into their moral values(Catholic values). They don't have any right to do that.

----------


## pjohns

> I just don't see how the world is going to end if same sex couples are allowed to marry and adopt children who need a loving home.  Forgive me if I don't join in on the hysteria but I don't think this is the end of civilization.


I do not believe it marks "the end of civilization," either.

Or that it is mere "hysteria."

In fact, the current gay-rights agenda would probably not even make my Top Ten list of the most pressing issues of the day.

But I will continue to oppose--at the margins, at least--the corruption of the word, "marriage," to describe the union of same-sex couples.

The term, "civil union," should suffice quite well, I would imagine...

----------


## pjohns

> Just get the government out of marriage all together.


With this, I heartily agree...

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> With this, I heartily agree...


I agree as well.  The only obligation the government needs to undertake that is vaguely related to the concept of marriage is providing equal protection of freedom of association, the natural and political rights of persons within the United States, and the privileges of citizens of the United States.  All of these objectives can be fulfilled without barging into matters of kinship.

----------


## kilgram

> I do not believe it marks "the end of civilization," either.
> 
> Or that it is mere "hysteria."
> 
> In fact, the current gay-rights agenda would probably not even make my Top Ten list of the most pressing issues of the day.
> 
> But I will continue to oppose--at the margins, at least--the corruption of the word, "marriage," to describe the union of same-sex couples.
> 
> The term, "civil union," should suffice quite well, I would imagine...


What is corruption of marriage? I don't see it. 

And a civil union is a discrimination. Giving a different name is easier to discriminate and give less rights, for example prevent from gays to adopt, because you need to be married to adopt. I am thinking in the Spanish legislation that is similar to the French, and that protests are in France.

----------


## Calypso Jones

why should a miniscule percentage of the population get to re-defne marriage and make rules for the rest of us.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013),ptif219 (05-27-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> why should a miniscule percentage of the population get to re-defne marriage and make rules for the rest of us.


Because more than 80% of population of that countries support it and are for it.

In Spain was close to the 90% and in France i think that is over 80%. For that reason I talked about freaks and minority. The ones that oppose to homosexual marriage are the minority. At least in Occidental Europe.

----------


## Calypso Jones

got a link for that claim?

----------


## kilgram

> got a link for that claim?


Yes.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> why should a miniscule percentage of the population get to re-defne marriage and make rules for the rest of us.


In my opinion, striking marriage from specific legal definition and administration would solve this issue.  Let individuals and individual society define and administer marriage, and let the state protect freedom of association, natural and political rights, and privileges equally under the law.

----------


## ptif219

> Yes.
> http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf


  2007?  that was 6 years ago

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Yes.
> http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf



are you so stupid that you think i'd buy that with just a link. Did you read that?  Well if you did then you find where people are overwhelmingly in favor of homosexual marriage.    I'm waiting.

----------


## Calypso Jones

*File:World marriage-equality laws.svg*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size of this preview: 800 × 411 pixels. Other resolution: 320 × 164 pixels.

Full resolution ‎(SVG file, nominally 863 × 443 pixels, file size: 1.77 MB)This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.


This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its *description page there* is shown below. 
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.




*Summary [edit]*

DescriptionWorld marriage-equality laws.svg
*English* (en): Laws establishing marriage equality for homosexual couples around the world.
dark blue:Marriage open to same-sex couples
Blue green:Same-sex marriage recognized in limited circumstances
Green:High court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage; not yet implemented
 Yellow:  Government announced intention to legalize, and has power to do so
Gray:  Same-sex marriage not legally recognized

----------


## pjohns

> What is corruption of marriage? I don't see it.


 To enact a new (and controversial!) meaning of a word--one that a very large number of people disagree with--is inherently a corruption of the language.

And it is certainly using the language in service to a political-philosophy agenda...




> And a civil union is a discrimination. Giving a different name is easier to discriminate and give less rights, for example prevent from gays to adopt, because you need to be married to adopt.


If you wish to empower gay couples to adopt, then you could certainly push for legislation--state-by-state--that would enable that to happen.

But the left generally prefers sweeping social change, instituted by the federal government, and gleefully imposed upon all 50 states...

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> To enact a new (and controversial!) meaning of a word--one that a very large number of people disagree with--is inherently a corruption of the language.
> 
> And it is certainly using the language in service to a political-philosophy agenda...


With that being said, why not eliminate the possibility of corruption of language as a whole?  After all, language is a dynamic, evolutionary social construct.  Its use, intent and context inherently varies from person-to-person, despite there being common standards. All that is needed is to strip the power of the state from defining and overseeing marriage.  This power is a relatively inconsequential power to give to a polity.  Let individuals and individual society define and administer marriage, and let the state worry about providing equal protection of the freedom of association, and the privileges of the United States.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I just don't see how the world is going to end if same sex couples are allowed to marry and adopt children who need a loving home. Forgive me if I don't join in on the hysteria but I don't think this is the end of civilization.


...the world won't end because there are many parts of the world that don't feel like you...what about western society?...I think this will add to the moral decay that's causing western society to crumble...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> XL, you're right. It seems that facts are being sacrificed on the altar of blind ideology here. I keep running into these extreme right wingers who just hate gay people and can't articulate why. It's perplexing. None of the gay people I know are perverts in any sense of the word and my husband and I trust our own children to be watched by a lesbien couple that we've known for years. There's never even a thought they would do something inappropriate. So I ask again, where is all this fear coming from?



...this is funny coming from a liberal...

----------


## Guest

> I know what the homo marriage lobby wants YOU to think but that is not the truth. They've already stated it. And those not saying it out loud were applauding and signalling their agreement. I'll post the link for ya if that would make any difference which i doubt it will. And i have a question. WHY would catholics support this perversion. WHY do catholics support abortion lovin' baby killin' democrats? What the hell is it? Do you suppose God has turned his back on catholics? Just askin' cause i got catholics in my own family. It's a puzzlement to me.
> 
> here it is:
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...a-for-Marriage


Some Catholics are Democrats others are Republicans.  I don't see how any Catholic or Christian could vote anything other than libertarian because Christians are not supposed to turn over moral authority and social concerns to governments.  Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's.  We pay taxes for a military, adjudication, and treaties.  Everything else we should be doing.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Personally, I think putting a child into a loving, financially stable home is 100x better than leaving them to rot away in orphanages, feeling unloved and unwanted, and then putting them out onto the streets when they turn 18, even if that home is a same-gender couple.

----------

The XL (05-28-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> It was writting with sarcasm, or at least that was the intention. In summary, my post said that the ones that try to force their views on the others are the extreme right and the Catholics(that I called freaks).
> 
> They want to force into the others to follow their way and to restrict rights of other people that are not doing anything wrong or bad. They just try to force other people to live into their moral values(Catholic values). They don't have any right to do that.



...but what about you and your kind forcing your views on the rest of us?...is that somehow different?...

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Personally, I think putting a child into a loving, financially stable home is 100x better than leaving them to rot away in orphanages, feeling unloved and unwanted, and then putting them out onto the streets when they turn 18, even if that home is a same-gender couple.



you're just assuming they're loving homes. you don't know what abuse may be going on. I'm gonna see if i can find stats.

Read this if you dare.    and keep in mind that FRC is only reporting the stats not collecting it.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/20...is-homosexual/

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> you're just assuming they're loving homes.  you don't know what abuse may be going on.   I'm gonna see if i can find stats.


Just like you're assuming the straight homes are loving and not abusive, yes. Generally speaking, people are not abusive.

----------

The XL (05-28-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Because more than 80% of population of that countries support it and are for it.
> 
> In Spain was close to the 90% and in France i think that is over 80%. For that reason I talked about freaks and minority. The ones that oppose to homosexual marriage are the minority. At least in Occidental Europe.


...who cares about France and Spain in the US?...I don't...

----------


## Dante1

> With that being said, why not eliminate the possibility of corruption of language as a whole?  After all, language is a dynamic, evolutionary social construct.  Its use, intent and context inherently varies from person-to-person, despite there being common standards. All that is needed is to strip the power of the state from defining and overseeing marriage.  This power is a relatively inconsequential power to give to a polity.  Let individuals and individual society define and administer marriage, and let the state worry about providing equal protection of the freedom of association, and the privileges of the United States.


That is simply not possible.

1. As soon as the marriage license is granted by the state, a set of rights and obligations springs into existence for both spouses. Those rights and obligations are reflective of society's expectations of what marriage is intended to accomplish for the spouses, for their children, and for their property on death. The marriage license is crucial to these legal outcomes.

2. The marriage license is also society's endorsement of the union. For homosexuals, this is the problem. That is why for them, civil unions which create the same rights and obligations of marriage are not enough. What homosexuals want is for non-homosexuals to endorse morally what they do behind closed doors. They feel the only way for them to achieve this is by the state issuing them the marriage license. 

The problem is that a sizable percentage of the male population does not want to endorse homosexual acts by giving them a marriage license, that to do so would degrade the very concept of marriage. These are the men homosexuals and females continually refer to as "homophobes," a totally misplaced and useless term.

Dante.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> ...who cares about France and Spain in the US?...I don't...


So why are you commenting news about France?  :Wink:

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> So why are you commenting news about France?



...you used France and Spain as examples...

----------


## kilgram

> ...but what about you and your kind forcing your views on the rest of us?...is that somehow different?...


Tell me how they are forced?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Tell me how they are forced?



When voters in an area vote against homosexual marriage, it goes to court and the judges rule in homosexuals favor.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> When voters in an area vote against homosexual marriage, it goes to court and the judges rule in homosexuals favor.


But see, legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't actually affect your life in any way. You're not ACTUALLY being forced to do anything.

----------

kilgram (05-28-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> ...you used France and Spain as examples...


Have you read the OP?

----------


## Dante1

> But see, legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't actually affect your life in any way. You're not ACTUALLY being forced to do anything.


Dead wrong. I am forced to endorse, through the law of the state where I reside, that all homosexual  acts behind closed doors have equal moral validity as heterosexual acts. I vehemently oppose establishing that moral congruity and that's why I will fight it politically.

Dante.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Dead wrong. I am forced to endorse, through the law of the state where I reside, that all homosexual  acts behind closed doors have equal moral validity as heterosexual acts. I vehemently oppose establishing that moral congruity and that's why I will fight it politically.
> 
> Dante.


Except this has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. But regardless, when I say you're not affected, I mean in a real way, not that your feelings get hurt.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Have you read the OP?


...Jesus, I replied to your post about France and Spain!!!...

----------


## Dante1

> Except this has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. But regardless, when I say you're not affected, I mean in a real way, not that your feelings get hurt.


What about my children and their children being told by my state government that homosexual acts are perfectly fine, when I, their father, am trying to teach them the opposite. That is a real affect on me and my family, it is most certainly not a question of "hurt feelings" (your words).

Objections to homosexual acts have EVERYTHING to do with morality. I don't know how you can conclude that endorsing same-sex marriage has nothing to do with morality, unless you yourself are morally indifferent to homosexual acts. But with that position, don't you beg the very question?

Dante.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> What about my children and their children being told by my state government that homosexual acts are perfectly fine, when I, their father, am trying to teach them the opposite. That is a real affect on me and my family, it is most certainly not a question of "hurt feelings" (your words).


That's going to happen regardless, for a variety of topics. The only way to avoid that is to move out to the middle of nowhere and avoid all human contact.




> Objections to homosexual acts have EVERYTHING to do with morality. I don't know how you can conclude that endorsing same-sex marriage has nothing to do with morality, unless you yourself are morally indifferent to homosexual acts. But with that position, don't you beg the very question?
> 
> Dante.


Yes, but legalization has nothing to do with morality.

----------


## Dante1

> That's going to happen regardless, for a variety of topics. The only way to avoid that is to move out to the middle of nowhere and avoid all human contact.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but legalization has nothing to do with morality.


Let's start with this. In your view, are homosexual acts immoral?

Dante.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Let's start with this. In your view, are homosexual acts immoral?
> 
> Dante.


No.

----------

kilgram (05-28-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> ...Jesus, I replied to your post about France and Spain!!!...


And? I told you this thread originally was about France, so, why are you commenting in a thread that is about France when you don't care about France and Spain.

----------


## Dante1

> No.


There is the answer. The reason you are indifferent to same-sex marriage is for the same reason anyone would be indifferent to it. Homosexual acts carry no moral connotations for you whatsoever.

So it is not necessarily a matter of state intervention. For you, for there to be marriage at all, whether by state license or otherwise, homosexuals should be part of it.

But people who believe there is a moral dimension would disagree strongly with you, and they would reject same-sex marriage.

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> Let's start with this. In your view, are homosexual acts immoral?
> 
> Dante.


In your point of view, is it the job of government to legislate morality and vices?  I'm just curious because I think that is also a progressive point of view.  They want the morality of secular humanism.  I'm of the idea that communities should handle morality while the government handles (maybe) defense.

----------


## Dante1

> In your point of view, is it the job of government to legislate morality and vices?  I'm just curious because I think that is also a progressive point of view.  They want the morality of secular humanism.  I'm of the idea that communities should handle morality while the government handles (maybe) defense.


Are you still mad at me?

Dante.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> And? I told you this thread originally was about France, so, why are you commenting in a thread that is about France when you don't care about France and Spain.



...are you simple?...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> There is the answer. The reason you are indifferent to same-sex marriage is for the same reason anyone would be indifferent to it. Homosexual acts carry no moral connotations for you whatsoever.
> 
> So it is not necessarily a matter of state intervention. For you, for there to be marriage at all, whether by state license or otherwise, homosexuals should be part of it.
> 
> But people who believe there is a moral dimension would disagree strongly with you, and they would reject same-sex marriage.
> 
> Dante.


I don't agree with that. I think marriage exists regardless of who the government recognizes, and that homosexual marriages happen whether it's recognized or not. I don't feel like my marriage is threatened or devalued just because a gay couple gets married. 

I will say, though, that the true "destruction" of marriage, if such a thing was possible, was when we established state recognition of marriage and the resulting benefits.

----------


## kilgram

> There is the answer. The reason you are indifferent to same-sex marriage is for the same reason anyone would be indifferent to it. Homosexual acts carry no moral connotations for you whatsoever.
> 
> So it is not necessarily a matter of state intervention. For you, for there to be marriage at all, whether by state license or otherwise, homosexuals should be part of it.
> 
> But people who believe there is a moral dimension would disagree strongly with you, and they would reject same-sex marriage.
> 
> Dante.


For good luck, civilized countries don't legislate according to moral. For good luck.

----------


## kilgram

> ...are you simple?...


Well, I abandon.

----------


## Guest

> Are you still mad at me?
> 
> Dante.


I'm never mad.  Sometimes cross, but mad...no.    

Now, that the niceties are past us...please, answer the question, @Dante1.  In your estimation is it the role of government to legislate morality?

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> That is simply not possible.
> 
> 1. As soon as the marriage license is granted by the state, a set of rights and obligations springs into existence for both spouses. Those rights and obligations are reflective of society's expectations of what marriage is intended to accomplish for the spouses, for their children, and for their property on death. The marriage license is crucial to these legal outcomes.
> 
> 2. The marriage license is also society's endorsement of the union. For homosexuals, this is the problem. That is why for them, civil unions which create the same rights and obligations of marriage are not enough. What homosexuals want is for non-homosexuals to endorse morally what they do behind closed doors. They feel the only way for them to achieve this is by the state issuing them the marriage license. 
> 
> The problem is that a sizable percentage of the male population does not want to endorse homosexual acts by giving them a marriage license, that to do so would degrade the very concept of marriage. These are the men homosexuals and females continually refer to as "homophobes," a totally misplaced and useless term.
> 
> Dante.


There is absolutely no reason for the state to be administering marriage licenses.  The political rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations as granted by the 14th Amendment to all citizens of the USA are reserved for persons, not couples, but persons.  The term 'persons' denotes all individual citizens of the United States.  Therefore, the fact that the state grants marriage licenses that afford different political rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations than they do to individuals is not only a violation of the equal protection clause, but is downright discriminatory.

With regards to your second point, why should any marriage need the endorsement of the state?  The only people that need to endorse a marriage are the two or more persons in the union of kinship.  

Furthermore, yes, homosexuals do want society to accept their sexual orientation  However, who is to say they want this acceptance through the power of the state?  I have many friends that are homosexual, and all of them agree that they do not care how they achieve acceptance of their sexual orientation, so long as it is achieved.  Fighting for the tolerance, acceptance, and respect of homosexuality is easily accomplished through efforts by we the people in civil society.  Those that are homosexual are not looking for universal acceptance, tolerance, and respect, just a shift in public perception of what is clearly a natural, genetically grounded part of a human being. 

Lastly, the other objective of the homosexual community is to garner marriage equality.  Again, I talk to many homosexuals, and all of them say that they just want marriage equality, and do not feel there is a set way in which it must be had.  Getting the state out of marriage and allowing individuals and individual society to fully exercise their freedom of association in the pursuit of kinship, without any adjectives, all equally protected under the law is a means to this end.  So, I do not think it is impossible for my proposal to come to fruition; in fact, it is by far one of the most easy, liberating, and equalizing approaches out there.

----------


## Dante1

> There is absolutely no reason for the state to be administering marriage licenses.  The political rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations as granted by the 14th Amendment to all citizens of the USA are reserved for persons, not couples, but persons.  The term 'persons' denotes all individual citizens of the United States.  Therefore, the fact that the state grants marriage licenses that afford different political rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations than they do to individuals is not only a violation of the equal protection clause, but is downright discriminatory.
> 
> With regards to your second point, why should any marriage need the endorsement of the state?  The only people that need to endorse a marriage are the two or more persons in the union of kinship.  
> 
> Furthermore, yes, homosexuals do want society to accept their sexual orientation  However, who is to say they want this acceptance through the power of the state?  I have many friends that are homosexual, and all of them agree that they do not care how they achieve acceptance of their sexual orientation, so long as it is achieved.  Fighting for the tolerance, acceptance, and respect of homosexuality is easily accomplished through efforts by we the people in civil society.  Those that are homosexual are not looking for universal acceptance, tolerance, and respect, just a shift in public perception of what is clearly a natural, genetically grounded part of a human being. 
> 
> Lastly, the other objective of the homosexual community is to garner marriage equality.  Again, I talk to many homosexuals, and all of them say that they just want marriage equality, and do not feel there is a set way in which it must be had.  Getting the state out of marriage and allowing individuals and individual society to fully exercise their freedom of association in the pursuit of kinship, without any adjectives, all equally protected under the law is a means to this end.  So, I do not think it is impossible for my proposal to come to fruition; in fact, it is by far one of the most easy, liberating, and equalizing approaches out there.


Would you agree that getting the state completely out of the business of licensing marriages would end marriage as we know it? That would be a big change, would it not? This is quite apart from the question of whether the state should be licensing marriages at all, and what legal rights and obligations accompany the marriage license. But wouldn't you agree that would be a big change?

For you, do homosexual actions have moral connotations?

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> I'm never mad.  Sometimes cross, but mad...no.    
> 
> Now, that the niceties are past us...please, answer the question, @Dante1.  In your estimation is it the role of government to legislate morality?


Let's start here. What are your thoughts on morality in general? Where, if anyplace, does morality fit in our world?

Dante.

----------


## kilgram

> Let's start here. What are your thoughts on morality in general? Where, if anyplace, does morality fit in our world?
> 
> Dante.


What morality?

----------


## Dante1

> What morality?


Certainly not "Help the poor!".

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> There is the answer. The reason you are indifferent to same-sex marriage is for the same reason anyone would be indifferent to it. Homosexual acts carry no moral connotations for you whatsoever.
> 
> So it is not necessarily a matter of state intervention. For you, for there to be marriage at all, whether by state license or otherwise, homosexuals should be part of it.
> 
> But people who believe there is a moral dimension would disagree strongly with you, and they would reject same-sex marriage.
> 
> Dante.


What makes it immoral?  It's none of your business.  No one is forcing you or your kids to be gay.

----------

kilgram (05-28-2013)

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Would you agree that getting the state completely out of the business of licensing marriages would end marriage as we know it? That would be a big change, would it not? This is quite apart from the question of whether the state should be licensing marriages at all, and what legal rights and obligations accompany the marriage license. But wouldn't you agree that would be a big change?
> 
> For you, do homosexual actions have moral connotations?
> 
> Dante.


Yes, getting the government out of marriage may end marriage as we know it.  I do not mind that.  Also, I consider morality to be one of many subjective, normative, arbitrary, and illusionary social constructs, no matter how engrained it is in our neural circuitry and our human interactions. I do not reject morality, but I do not consider it a rational or objective means of examining the world around us, and so I avoid employing morality at all costs.  With that being said, I believe homosexuals and 'homosexual actions' are just so; they do not have any connotations of morality.

----------


## Guest

> Let's start here. What are your thoughts on morality in general? Where, if anyplace, does morality fit in our world?
> 
> Dante.


It is impolite to ask a question in reply to a question.  It appears as though one is _evading_ the question posed to them.  

Morality is a religious and spiritual concept that is vital to a robust and orderly society.  It is the provenance of churches and communities.  The government is merely a facilitation engine for those things we cannot do ourselves.  I hardly think we are unable to promote morality when skinny jeans, iPhones, and weedwackers have proliferated the nation based off of smart, targeted ad campaigns.  

When being kind I would suggest that having government handle social ills is an act of laziness, when less kind I might say it is a selfish desire to have ones own version of morality imposed over the morality of others.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Yes, getting the government out of marriage may end marriage as we know it. I do not mind that. Also, I consider morality to be one of many subjective, normative, arbitrary, and illusionary social constructs, no matter how engrained it is in our neural circuitry and our human interactions. I do not reject morality, but I do not consider it a rational or objective means of examining the world around us, and so I avoid employing morality at all costs. With that being said, I believe homosexuals and 'homosexual actions' are just so; they do not have any connotations of morality.



great idea, do away with morality...like we're not almost totally there anyway.   Hope you got a gun and it doesn't get taken away from you.

----------


## Dante1

> It is impolite to ask a question in reply to a question.  It appears as though one is _evading_ the question posed to them.  
> 
> Morality is a religious and spiritual concept that is vital to a robust and orderly society.  It is the provenance of churches and communities.  The government is merely a facilitation engine for those things we cannot do ourselves.  I hardly think we are unable to promote morality when skinny jeans, iPhones, and weedwackers have proliferated the nation based off of smart, targeted ad campaigns.  
> 
> When being kind I would suggest that having government handle social ills is an act of laziness, when less kind I might say it is a selfish desire to have ones own version of morality imposed over the morality of others.


Does the state incarcerate the rapist just to keep him away from innocent females, or does the state punish him? If the latter, why?

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> What makes it immoral?  It's none of your business.  No one is forcing you or your kids to be gay.


Would you endorse marriage between a brother and a sister as long as one or both of them are sterile? A father and his adult daughter as long as one or both are sterile?

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> Does the state incarcerate the rapist just to keep him away from innocent females, or does the state punish him? If the latter, why?
> 
> Dante.


So you equate a vice with an actual criminal act then? 

 I do not see the job of government as one that should regulate vices.  That is the job of churches and communities.  In fact, it is by releasing this duty to the government that we are in the mess we are in now.  By using your political influence to dictate your morality, it opened up the playing field for secular humanists to do the same.

Dr. Frankenstein meet your monster.

If the government should weigh in on morality at all it would be in those occasions where an individual or cartel violated the rights, property, and interests of others, not to legislate or prohibit commerce or any other activity that occurs between consenting individuals.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Would you endorse marriage between a brother and a sister as long as one or both of them are sterile? A father and his adult daughter as long as one or both are sterile?
> 
> Dante.


Why not? It affects my life in absolutely no way, so why should I care?

----------

The XL (05-28-2013)

----------


## The XL

> great idea, do away with morality...like we're not almost totally there anyway.   Hope you got a gun and it doesn't get taken away from you.


What makes it immoral?  In detail, please.

----------


## The XL

> Would you endorse marriage between a brother and a sister as long as one or both of them are sterile? A father and his adult daughter as long as one or both are sterile?
> 
> Dante.


As long as all the parties are at least 18 or whatever the age for marriage in that state is, I don't care.  Why is it my business or yours what consenting adults do?

----------


## Guest

> Would you endorse marriage between a brother and a sister as long as one or both of them are sterile? A father and his adult daughter as long as one or both are sterile?
> 
> Dante.


I would not personally endorse men in skinny jeans or Tom Hardy clothing but what I personally endorse or not endorse should not be the law.  Laws should be to protect property rights and interests, not abuse them, and to punish those who violate the bodies of others.

I'm not interested in having the same inefficiency and ruthlessness applied to vices as has been applied to tax collection, nor do I wish money to come out of my pocket to hold non-violent offenders in jail.  They should be out working off their "crimes" and paying restitution to those they've offended.

----------


## Dante1

> Why not? It affects my life in absolutely no way, so why should I care?


Suppose your adult son and your adult daughter wanted to "marry," how would you feel about that?

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> Suppose your adult son and your adult daughter wanted to "marry," how would you feel about that?
> 
> Dante.


Probably pretty shitty.  But so what?  What they do isn't the parents business.  Should disappointing your parents be a criminal act?  Are you really trying to make that case, Mr. Lawyer?

----------


## Dante1

> As long as all the parties are at least 18 or whatever the age for marriage in that state is, I don't care.  Why is it my business or yours what consenting adults do?


Suppose you have two adult sons who decide they want to "marry," what would you tell them, if anything?

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> Probably pretty shitty.  But so what?  What they do isn't the parents business.  Should disappointing your parents be a criminal act?  Are you really trying to make that case, Mr. Lawyer?


Why would you feel "shitty" about that? Why aren't you indifferent? Can you explain?

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> Why would you feel "shitty" about that? Why aren't you indifferent? Can you explain?
> 
> Dante.


Because I do find family members marrying weird.  But that doesn't mean I have the right to force people to adhere to my point of view.  It's not my business.

----------


## Guest

@Dante1

Perhaps is it time for you to answer some questions or have answers withheld from you...?  I know you can do it.  It's not that hard to put your neck out there and take a position without equivocating.  We're not in court, ya know?   :Wink:

----------


## The XL

> Suppose you have two adult sons who decide they want to "marry," what would you tell them, if anything?
> 
> Dante.


I'd tell them that the shit is weird, but I wouldn't disown them.

----------


## Dante1

> Because I do find family members marrying weird.  But that doesn't mean I have the right to force people to adhere to my point of view.  It's not my business.


What's "weird" about it? What makes that more "weird" than same-sex marriage? There must be something going on there. What is it?

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> I'd tell them that the shit is weird, but I wouldn't disown them.


What do you mean by "the shit is weird"? What makes it weird, and why? 

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> What do you mean by "the shit is weird"? What makes it weird, and why? 
> 
> Dante.


Do you believe that the government that collects your tax dollars should be collecting more of them to prevent people using threat of force from doing weird shit?

----------


## Dante1

> @Dante1
> 
> Perhaps is it time for you to answer some questions or have answers withheld from you...?  I know you can do it.  It's not that hard to put your neck out there and take a position without equivocating.  We're not in court, ya know?


I bet you're cute. :Smiley20: 

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> What do you mean by "the shit is weird"? What makes it weird, and why? 
> 
> Dante.


Growing up with someone and knowing them as a family member, turning around, and becoming an item with said family member is strange to me.  It may or not be irrational.  

But so what?  I'm not calling for the legislation of my subjective morality.   You're trying to change the subject, I see right through it.

----------


## Guest

> I bet you're cute.
> 
> Dante.


I'm terribly cute.  Everyone knows this.  

I'm also wonderfully brilliant at my job.  Fortunately for you and I, today I am not at my usual job, moreover, this forum is not an extension of our jobs.  Sooooo, we needn't try to evade and use our magic tricks.  We can posit and opine all day if we like.

----------


## Dante1

> Growing up with someone and knowing them as a family member, turning around, and becoming an item with said family member is strange to me.  It may or not be irrational.  
> 
> But so what?  I'm not calling for the legislation of my subjective morality.   You're trying to change the subject, I see right through it.


So you're willing to say that this scenario brings into play your "subjective morality"?  Would you say that this scenario is not just "weird," or "strange" or "irrational," but that it also involves a question coming out of your "subjective morality"?

Dante.

----------


## Guest

> So you're willing to say that this scenario brings into play your "subjective morality"?  Would you say that this scenario is not just "weird," or "strange" or "irrational," but that it also involves a question coming out of your "subjective morality"?
> 
> Dante.


Thus elaborating my point of everyone's morality being different and best handled by communities through use of shaming, rotten tomatoes, and ignoring offputting individuals and their behavior.

----------


## The XL

> So you're willing to say that this scenario brings into play your "subjective morality"?  Would you say that this scenario is not just "weird," or "strange" or "irrational," but that it also involves a question coming out of your "subjective morality"?
> 
> Dante.


What does it matter how I think?  I think taking heroin is stupid, but I don't advocate for government force to stop it.  I think climbing Mount Everest is pretty dumb, but I don't want people to go to prison for doing it.

I believe in freedom.  Your attempts at changing the subject are ridiculously transparent.

----------


## Dante1

> I'm terribly cute.  Everyone knows this.


Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?  :Smiley20: 

Dante.

----------


## The XL

Hey Rinnie, is this something some lawyers do when outclassed?  Change the subject and and babble about irrelevant stuff?  Cause that's what Mr. Dante is doing.

----------


## The XL

> Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? 
> 
> Dante.


I can vouch for it, I've seen her in person before.

----------


## Dante1

> What does it matter how I think?  I think taking heroin is stupid, but I don't advocate for government force to stop it.  I think climbing Mount Everest is pretty dumb, but I don't want people to go to prison for doing it.
> 
> I believe in freedom.  Your attempts at changing the subject are ridiculously transparent.


You seem uneasy expressing your moral beliefs. When someone gets close to one of your "subjective" moral beliefs, you disassemble. What makes you uncomfortable expressing your moral beliefs?

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> You seem uneasy expressing your moral beliefs. When someone gets close to one of your "subjective" moral beliefs, you disassemble. What makes you uncomfortable expressing your moral beliefs?
> 
> Dante.


I'm not.  It's irrelevant to the discussion.  I've already said I do not believe I, or anyone else, has the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Your transparent, third rate lawyer tactics won't work on me.  My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion.  Start another thread about morals, and I'll gladly contribute.

----------


## Dante1

> Thus elaborating my point of everyone's morality being different and best handled by communities through use of shaming, rotten tomatoes, and ignoring offputting individuals and their behavior.


Then it's time for me to make a bald assertion (like "I'm terribly cute").

The female notion of morals and morality bears no resemblance whatsoever to the male's notion of morals and morality.

Dante.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Suppose your adult son and your adult daughter wanted to "marry," how would you feel about that?
> 
> Dante.


I would not be happy about it, but I wouldn't ask the government to intervene.

----------


## Dante1

> I'm not.  It's irrelevant to the discussion.  I've already said I do not believe I, or anyone else, has the right to impose their beliefs on others.
> 
> Your transparent, third rate lawyer tactics won't work on me.  My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion.  Start another thread about morals, and I'll gladly contribute.


It is relevant. You would be indifferent to same-sex marriage between any two non-siblings, but your "subjective morality" would not approve of same-sex marriage between your two sons. This has nothing to do with imposing anything on anybody. You would not be morally indifferent to same-sex marriage between your two sons. In your own mind, you would disapprove of it morally.

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> I would not be happy about it, but I wouldn't ask the government to intervene.


Why would you not be happy about it?

Dante.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Why would you not be happy about it?
> 
> Dante.


Because they are my children, so now it affects me.

----------


## The XL

> It is relevant. You would be indifferent to same-sex marriage between any two non-siblings, but your "subjective morality" would not approve of same-sex marriage between your two sons. This has nothing to do with imposing anything on anybody. You would not be morally indifferent to same-sex marriage between your two sons. In your own mind, you would disapprove of it morally.
> 
> Dante.


I don't advocate for government force either way, so no, it is not relevant.

----------


## Dante1

> Because they are my children, so now it affects me.


Yes, it affects you morally, even if they are two "consenting adults" living their lives the way they choose.

Dante.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, it affects you morally, even if they are two "consenting adults" living their lives the way they choose.
> 
> Dante.


I didn't say it affects me morally.

----------


## Dante1

> I didn't say it affects me morally.


If not morally, then how does it "affect" you?

Dante.

----------


## Dante1

> I don't advocate for government force either way, so no, it is not relevant.


It has nothing to do with government force and you know it. You're throwing up a red herring to avoid the morality argument again.

Dante.

----------

Kabuki Joe (05-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> If not morally, then how does it "affect" you?
> 
> Dante.


Genetically.

----------


## Dante1

> Genetically.


OK, all seriousness is gone.

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> It has nothing to do with government force and you know it. You're throwing up a red herring to avoid the morality argument again.
> 
> Dante.


Everybody has their own morals, that's perfectly fine.  I find it strange more than immoral, really.  Immoral is throwing people behind bars for living a certain non-violent lifestyle, or starting wars on false pretenses.  

Either way, I'm not in the business of imposing my will on others.  Siblings marrying, gays marrying, straights marrying, etc, is none of my business.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> OK, all seriousness is gone.
> 
> Dante.


That's a shame.

----------


## Dante1

> Everybody has their own morals, that's perfectly fine.  I find it strange more than immoral, really.  Immoral is throwing people behind bars for living a certain non-violent lifestyle, or starting wars on false pretenses.  
> 
> Either way, I'm not in the business of imposing my will on others.  Siblings marrying, gays marrying, straights marrying, etc, is none of my business.


What if you had two adult sons that wanted to "marry," how would you view that?

Dante.

----------


## The XL

> What if you had two adult sons that wanted to "marry," how would you view that?
> 
> Dante.


It would be weird to me, but I would not view them as evil, nor would I disown them.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> great idea, do away with morality...like we're not almost totally there anyway.   Hope you got a gun and it doesn't get taken away from you.


I did not say that we as a society should get rid of morality.  For all my objections to the illusionary farce that is morality, I do recognize its important utility in providing a means of order.

----------


## Dante1

> I did not say that we as a society should get rid of morality.  For all my objections to the illusionary farce that is morality, I do recognize its important utility in providing a means of order.


I wonder how so many men on this forum got brainwashed into thinking morality is not important. What the hell happened to the male brain?

They are afraid to express themselves on moral beliefs, and will even attempt to degrade the whole concept of morality.

Could it be that space invaders arrived on earth and polluted the male brain, or is it more a function of the phenomenon of male feminism. I think the latter.

Dante.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I wonder how so many men on this forum got brainwashed into thinking morality is not important. What the hell happened to the male brain?
> 
> They are afraid to express themselves on moral beliefs, and will even attempt to degrade the whole concept of morality.
> 
> Could it be that space invaders arrived on earth and polluted the male brain, or is it more a function of the phenomenon of male feminism. I think the latter.
> 
> Dante.


Actually, I believe that since morality is inherently feelings-based rather than logic- or reason-based, that it would be a mainly female trait, if the studies that show females on average rely more on feelings than logic.

----------


## kilgram

> I wonder how so many men on this forum got brainwashed into thinking morality is not important. What the hell happened to the male brain?
> 
> They are afraid to express themselves on moral beliefs, and will even attempt to degrade the whole concept of morality.
> 
> Could it be that space invaders arrived on earth and polluted the male brain, or is it more a function of the phenomenon of male feminism. I think the latter.
> 
> Dante.


All the civilized men are against being morality legislated. It goes against freedom of expression. Why your morality should be forced over the others? That is the typical of Islamic countries. I suppose that in your case, the Fatwa envy is real.

Why your morality should be legislated. What morality is better than other? Why your belief that homosexuality is immoral is better than my belief in equality and that every person is free to do whatever they want in their personal life, while they don't do any harm.

----------


## Dante1

> Actually, I believe that since morality is inherently feelings-based rather than logic- or reason-based, that it would be a mainly female trait, if the studies that show females on average rely more on feelings than logic.


So for you, morality is a female trait, not a male trait. :Huh: 

The most important traits of the female are (1) a total absorption in human perceptions rather than in external reality, and (2) the interplay between emotions and human perceptions (whether true or not) within herself, and among others.

When a female's emotions are triggered, all reason, logic and morality go right out the window, and she focuses only on perceptions (whether true or not) and her emotional reaction to those perceptions. That is why in her thought and conduct, the female's morality is so shallow and fleeting.

It is absurd to claim that females can reason morally but men cannot.

Dante.

----------


## Maximatic

It is objectively true that people value themselves and that they value other people.
It is objectively true that, in order to to get what we want for ourselves and for the other people we value, we must be prepared to cooperate with others.
The phenomenon of reciprocity is real, objectively.
It is an objective truth that we experience moral obligations.

Morality is as subjective as gravity.

----------


## kilgram

It is interesting that you talk about females and men, and not male. There is some subconscious meaning of this form of speaking  :Wink: 

And also implicating that women don't have moral values. It is really interesting.

 @Dante1

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> I wonder how so many men on this forum got brainwashed into thinking morality is not important. What the hell happened to the male brain?
> 
> They are afraid to express themselves on moral beliefs, and will even attempt to degrade the whole concept of morality.
> 
> Could it be that space invaders arrived on earth and polluted the male brain, or is it more a function of the phenomenon of male feminism. I think the latter.
> 
> Dante.


Dante, it is not that I do not have a moral compass.  I certainly do, mainly because human society has developed to realize the utility of morality, and henceforth, that  sense of morality is imposed upon me.   To say that morality is not objective is to simply say that it is not independent of human consciousness.  It is entirely a human construction formed, and reformed throughout our species' existence on the planet Earth, and because it is utilitarian, it is not only subjective, but highly so, while also being normative. The fact that I try minimizing the use of morality in discussion is my testament to transcend it for logical, rational, objective thought.

----------


## Dante1

> Dante, it is not that I do not have a moral compass.  I certainly do, mainly because human society has developed to realize the utility of morality, and henceforth, that  sense of morality is imposed upon me.   To say that morality is not objective is to simply say that it is not independent of human consciousness.  It is entirely a human construction formed, and reformed throughout our species' existence on the planet Earth, and because it is utilitarian, it is not only subjective, but highly so, while also being normative. The fact that I try minimizing the use of morality in discussion is my testament to transcend it for logical, rational, objective thought.


True, we can attempt to restrain all debate to questions over the strength of each syllogistic argument and/or the credibility of the evidence supporting the factual assertions made.

But that won't work. There are few if any debates that do not involve important normative considerations. Indeed, normative considerations often lead to the strongest argument in debate. The best arguments often rest on a careful understanding of the underlying normative elements.

Dante.

----------


## Maximatic

> It is entirely a human construction formed, and reformed throughout our species' existence on the planet Earth


If you want to subdue subjectivity as much as possible in you own comments, you should stop making positive, conclusive statements about the source of morality such as the one above. Many, probably most, people have personal experiences which lead them to believe that the source of morality is a higher power. If you really want to stay out of metaphysical discussions, you should avoid making positive claims about the metaphysics of morality.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> True, we can attempt to restrain all debate to questions over the strength of each syllogistic argument and/or the credibility of the evidence supporting the factual assertions made.
> 
> But that won't work. There are few if any debates that do not involve important normative considerations. Indeed, normative considerations often lead to the strongest argument in debate. The best arguments often rest on a careful understanding of the underlying normative elements.
> 
> Dante.


Of course, but one need not agree or disagree, aka take a side on normative elements to understand them.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> If you want to subdue subjectivity as much as possible in you own comments, you should stop making positive, conclusive statements about the source of morality such as the one above. Many, probably most, people have personal experiences which lead them to believe that the source of morality is a higher power. If you really want to stay out of metaphysical discussions, you should avoid making positive claims about the metaphysics of morality.


Well, I am not making metaphysical claims.  I am actually making observations regarding the emergence of human constructions.  It involves application of neurology, psychology, and biology, all boiled down for lay use and presentation.

----------


## Maximatic

> It is *entirely* a human construction formed, and reformed throughout our species' existence on the planet Earth





> Well, I am not making metaphysical claims.  I am actually making observations regarding the emergence of human constructions.  It involves application of the evolutionary sciences, boiled down for lay use and presentation.


I'm sorry?

Look, I also try to avoid claims about the source of moral obligations as much as possible as well, even though I have strong opinions on the matter, especially when I know that the other party to the discussion holds to a conflicting opinion. I even went to the trouble of making an argument, from experience, for the existence of natural law from experience of moral obligation just so we could avoid discussion of the source of morality. You understand that, in order to show that morality is *entirely* a human construct, you would need to show that God does not exist, don't you? Is that really the discussion you want to have?

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> I'm sorry?
> 
> Look, I also try to avoid claims about the source of moral obligations as much as possible as well, even though I have strong opinions on the matter, especially when I know that the other party to the discussion holds to a conflicting opinion. I even went to the trouble of making an argument, from experience, for the existence of natural law from experience of moral obligation just so we could avoid discussion of the source of morality. You understand that, in order to show that morality is *entirely* a human construct, you would need to show that God does not exist, don't you? Is that really the discussion you want to have?


Well, the fact of the matter is that I do not believe God does not exist.  Like morality, I hold God as ultimately being a human construct that we as humans also try to objectify by proving its existence or non-existence independent of our consciousness.  I look to history and evolutionary psychology for reasons why, arguing that historical accounts and studies of perception of a higher power indicate a utilitarian purpose for the creation of deities, most notably the imposition of order.  I would also go one step further that I rely primarily on evolutionary psychology to posit that the idea of deities has been engrained in our neural circuitry, so much so that we do not question its origins and instead try to prove or disprove its objectivity.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I wonder how so many men on this forum got brainwashed into thinking morality is not important. What the hell happened to the male brain?
> 
> They are afraid to express themselves on moral beliefs, and will even attempt to degrade the whole concept of morality.
> 
> Could it be that space invaders arrived on earth and polluted the male brain, or is it more a function of the phenomenon of male feminism. I think the latter.
> 
> Dante.


...there's a lot of "male women" on this forum that don't have the "backbone" to step on someone's toes...don't want to hurt someone's feelings...etc, etc, etc...if someone is mid 30's and under they have been feminized by our society into thinking like a woman and so you can give them the benefit of the doubt...or a hug...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> _All the civilized men are against being morality legislated._ It goes against freedom of expression. Why your morality should be forced over the others? That is the typical of Islamic countries. I suppose that in your case, the Fatwa envy is real.
> 
> Why your morality should be legislated. What morality is better than other? Why your belief that homosexuality is immoral is better than my belief in equality and that every person is free to do whatever they want in their personal life, while they don't do any harm.


...IE beta males?...

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> ...IE beta males?...


Actually, no.  If you are uncomfortable with the moral compass of your society, why would you want the coercive power of the state to change it for you?  That is weak, in my opinion, and a sign that someone is a beta-male.  An alpha-male stands his ground and takes matters into his own hands, and does not defer to a higher authority to get what they want.  Removing the state's power to legislate morality puts the power to do what one feels is right back into the alpha-male's hands.

----------


## kilgram

> ...IE beta males?...


So a country with "alpha males" is a country with moral laws, like Islamic countries or in the past the Catholic countries like Spain. I understand it.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> So for you, morality is a female trait, not a male trait.
> 
> The most important traits of the female are (1) a total absorption in human perceptions rather than in external reality, and (2) the interplay between emotions and human perceptions (whether true or not) within herself, and among others.
> 
> When a female's emotions are triggered, all reason, logic and morality go right out the window, and she focuses only on perceptions (whether true or not) and her emotional reaction to those perceptions. That is why in her thought and conduct, the female's morality is so shallow and fleeting.
> 
> It is absurd to claim that females can reason morally but men cannot.
> 
> Dante.


...LOLOL...thanks for quoting TRAT because I have him on ignore and I wouldn't have seen what he wrote...I'm impressed that he is starting to come around as far as the different thought processes between the sexes and how it influences trends in society...but views on morality differ between the sexes/genders...males/men and females/women do differ on views of morality...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Actually, no. If you are uncomfortable with the moral compass of your society, why would you want the coercive power of the state to change it for you? That is weak, in my opinion, and a sign that someone is a beta-male. An alpha-male stands his ground and takes matters into his own hands, and does not defer to a higher authority to get what they want. Removing the state's power to legislate morality puts the power to do what one feels is right back into the alpha-male's hands.


...well, no, you are wrong...Alpha Males are what built the US by conquering North America while doing not so nice things, not the civilized BETA Males that change the rules after the Alpha's have done the hard part...do you even know the difference between Alphas and Betas?...next time you are watching something on baboons, the Alphas Males are the ones mounting up on the other males and saying, "that's right, I can do this to you and you can't do a thing about it!!!!!"...civilized males...LOLOLOLOL...that's funny...

----------


## kilgram

> ...well, no, you are wrong...Alpha Males are what built the US by conquering North America while doing not so nice things, not the civilized BETA Males that change the rules after the Alpha's have done the hard part...do you even know the difference between Alphas and Betas?...next time you are watching something on baboons, the Alphas Males are the ones mounting up on the other males and saying, "that's right, I can do this to you and you can't do a thing about it!!!!!"...civilized males...LOLOLOLOL...that's funny...


I really enjoy your comments. I find them really illuminating.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> So a country with "alpha males" is a country with moral laws, like Islamic countries or in the past the Catholic countries like Spain. I understand it.



...never said that...alpha males, like Saddam, keep everyone in line because they are strong enough to do it...and they place their moral ideals at the top of the list...are his morals any better then mine?...doesn't really matter because he's the Alpha Male that's in charge and making the rules...and like I have said too many times to count, Alpha Males aren't in control anymore and what they set-up is being changed or pushed aside by women and/or Beta Males...but mark my words, the Alpha Male still has his place in America, standing behind all the women and Beta Males so as they can "puff up" like they matter...just my opinion...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I really enjoy your comments.



...no you don't, you can't relate what-so-ever...most women don't...

----------


## kilgram

> ...no you don't, you can't relate what-so-ever...most women don't...


Women? Another illuminating post.

----------


## Guest

> So for you, morality is a female trait, not a male trait.
> 
> The most important traits of the female are (1) a total absorption in human perceptions rather than in external reality, and (2) the interplay between emotions and human perceptions (whether true or not) within herself, and among others.


I'm certain that @Dante1, aka "Bill Nye Science Guy" can explain this with research and non-behavioral, hard neurological scientific consensus rather than make a statement based off of his own emotion-based observational lens, so I'll wait for a more detailed explanation of why he believes this to be true.




> When a female's emotions are triggered, all reason, logic and morality go right out the window, and she focuses only on perceptions (whether true or not) and her emotional reaction to those perceptions. That is why in her thought and conduct, the female's morality is so shallow and fleeting.


Yes, of course.  Men never fall to immorality over the off-chance of getting sex.  They are stoics, those men!  Mark Antony, such a great Roman general and fighter, certainly didn't let some fine Egyptian vajayjay throw him off track.  Menelaus never let pride over being cuckolded force him to launch a thousand ships.

Yes, it is just us.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (05-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So for you, morality is a female trait, not a male trait.
> 
> The most important traits of the female are (1) a total absorption in human perceptions rather than in external reality, and (2) the interplay between emotions and human perceptions (whether true or not) within herself, and among others.
> 
> When a female's emotions are triggered, all reason, logic and morality go right out the window, and she focuses only on perceptions (whether true or not) and her emotional reaction to those perceptions. That is why in her thought and conduct, the female's morality is so shallow and fleeting.
> 
> It is absurd to claim that females can reason morally but men cannot.
> 
> Dante.


I didn't say that. I merely said that since men like you enjoy producing studies that show women rely more on feelings and men rely more on logic and reason (note: MORE, not completely), that it would be worth noting that morality is an inherently feelings/emotion-based concept, thus making it primarily female.

----------


## Maximatic

> Well, the fact of the matter is that I do not believe God does not exist.  Like morality, I hold God as ultimately being a human construct that we as humans also try to objectify by proving its existence or non-existence independent of our consciousness.  I look to history and evolutionary psychology for reasons why, arguing that historical accounts and studies of perception of a higher power indicate a utilitarian purpose for the creation of deities, most notably the imposition of order.  I would also go one step further that I rely primarily on evolutionary psychology to posit that the idea of deities has been engrained in our neural circuitry, so much so that we do not question its origins and instead try to prove or disprove its objectivity.


I could respond by saying that the success of the ancients in appealing to a nonexistent entity as a justification for their de facto rule makes about as much sense as us having a craving for a glass sandwich or a silicon based life form craving steak, that it is more rational to believe that our propensity to believe that there is a higher power must be grounded in something real. I could point out that there are a litany of other reasons to believe that God does exist. I could list those reason and defend them against your objections and challenge you to give reasons to support your claim that God, not just a product of the human imagination, but God, the being that transcends and created the world does not exist, but why? I don't want to have that discussion. You don't want to have it. So, why not just say that we do experience a sense of moral obligation, we find it useful. And leave it at that. Again, if you want to subdue subjectivity to the best of your ability, why make statements about the ultimate nature of reality?

----------


## Calypso Jones

Navel gazing at it's finest.  :Wink:

----------

