Home | Community | Message Board


FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Arbitary Moral Values
    #2390696 - 03/01/04 11:50 AM (13 years, 1 day ago)

I noticed in the discussion about homosexuality that alot of our values seem to be arbitrary, and thus, hard to explain. Most of us would say that a 50 year old man having sex with a 14 year old is wrong, and that the same 50 year old man with an 18 year old, isn't 'as wrong'. Why is this? Arbitary values. We arbitrarily decide usually based on numbers, when things are and are not wrong. The legal age of concent in most states is actually 16, not 18 (the federal guideline). What makes it that a 20 year old man having sex with a girl who is 15 years, 364 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes old is illegal, but one minute later, it's not? Our arbitarily set up value system.

why is it that one second divides who can and can't legally drink? who can murder and be prosecuted as a juvenile or as an adult? Who can purchase cigarettes? firearms?

Now, especially for ss7, do you think that these values, since they are arbitrary and, thus, capricious, still have a place in our society?

If you say "yes", then why is it that the vast majority of the nation saying that they, without real cause (read: arbitrarily), are not in agreement with gay marriage, considered wrong by you? If you can have your arbitrarily set up value system where one mere flash of time seperates pedophilia with a regular relationship, why can't the majority decide that homosexuality is just simply wrong?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2390767 - 03/01/04 12:20 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

having sex with a 15 year old is not illegal because it's morally wrong to have sex with someone who's less than 16. it's illegal because it's wrong to have sex with a person who cannot properly consent. the law has decided (perhaps arbitrarily) that the age at which a person can consent is 16 (or 18). the number may be arbitrary, but the principle behind it is not: it is wrong to have sex with someone who is too young to consent. there is nothing analogous to this in laws prohibiting sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2390797 - 03/01/04 12:28 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

I don't think arbitrary moral laws have a place in society.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,484
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 19 hours, 58 minutes
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2391216 - 03/01/04 02:41 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

mushmaster has it.

There is nothing at all arbitrary about having laws forbidding pedophilia. Clearly at some age a child is too young to understand what they are supposed to be consenting to, making a clear victim in the crime. The only "arbitrary" part is that we have to somehow decide an age at which to say a person is capable of giving consent.

In homosexuality there is no victim. Can you explain, in rational terms, why homosexuality is wrong?

If you want to accept the idea that it's OK for the majority to decide that an act (e.g., homosexuality) without victims is wrong and should be illegal, are you saying that it should be OK to have laws against things like miscegenation?

If you want to accept the idea that it's OK to have laws against things where there are consequences borne by society (e.g., drug abuse), are you not also opening the door to making similar laws against things like smoking tobacco or obesity?


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: ToxicMan]
    #2391749 - 03/01/04 05:28 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

ToxicMan said:
There is nothing at all arbitrary about having laws forbidding pedophilia. Clearly at some age a child is too young to understand what they are supposed to be consenting to, making a clear victim in the crime. The only "arbitrary" part is that we have to somehow decide an age at which to say a person is capable of giving consent.




Exactly, that is what I meant by saying it was arbitrary.
Quote:


In homosexuality there is no victim. Can you explain, in rational terms, why homosexuality is wrong?




CAn you expain, in rational terms, why it is a crime to take pictures of a girl having sex 5 minutes before her 18th birthday, but not when it is her birthday? Arbitrary values. I don't really have a specific reason, otehr than I think it is disgusting, and that, to be hoenst, is only about male/male homosexuality. I, like most other guys, really, REALLY like watching 2 girls go at it. The hot college spring break drunk slut girls, not the ellen degeneres/rosie o'donnel types.
Quote:


If you want to accept the idea that it's OK for the majority to decide that an act (e.g., homosexuality) without victims is wrong and should be illegal, are you saying that it should be OK to have laws against things like miscegenation?




I don't think that my personal opinion here matters. What really matters is that if you don't think that, as I'm sure you don't, who would you say SHOULD make that decision? My entire argument against gay marriage is that the majority of the people in the areas where it is now a problem have decided that they do not want it, and it seems that liberals think they can just pull an end-run around majority opinion when it suits them. Who do you, and those liberals, think should be the final word?
Quote:


If you want to accept the idea that it's OK to have laws against things where there are consequences borne by society (e.g., drug abuse), are you not also opening the door to making similar laws against things like smoking tobacco or obesity?



I don't understand what you mean, re-phrase and i'll answer.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,890
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 41 minutes, 51 seconds
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2391855 - 03/01/04 06:11 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

Don't you think it's a good idea to set age limits for sexual concent?

It sounds like you're saying that since the ages for sexual concent are arbirary that we might as well make a law forbidding homosexuality.







--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Dennis & The Times - Flight Patterns



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblethescientist
Registered: 03/10/02
Posts: 788
Loc: Dade County
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: ]
    #2391882 - 03/01/04 06:19 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

right on, good point.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2392027 - 03/01/04 07:22 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

I am not a big fan of any unnecessary legislation, like most age laws.

But the argument against gay marriage that states: "If we let gays marry, why not let pedophiles marry, or people marry dogs".. is completely ridiculous, and fallacious to use as an example of arbitrary moral values. The best strawman they can come up with.


Besides the legal fact that children are under the age of sexual consent, they are under the age of natural consent. They haven't even gone through puberty and therefore are non-sexual beings in their own right(though its the thing nowadays to parrot alot of sexual behavior at young ages). If theres a 14 year old girl whos past puberty and really wants to go get fucked, let her. I don't care who she does it with. I may think the guy she is with is a douche and that she is an idiot, but I'm not gonna try to legislate it.

And then people bring animals into it? Jesus there not even human. Legally they can't consent, naturally they can't consent. Marriage is a human made institution, who thinks their pets give a damn about it? But if there was some asshole who wanted to marry his pet, let him. What difference is it gonna make? Its not gonna affect taxes, insurance, etc. etc.... Its a fucking dog.

Marrying a dog would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture on the part of the human involved, for the human involved, with no actual changes or benefits. So what would be the big deal?


Is there anything more to this whole thing than just wanting to control behavior based on personal beleifs?



My entire argument against gay marriage is that the majority of the people in the areas where it is now a problem have decided that they do not want it


Well the US is a republic with minority rights. It sounds like you are looking for mob rule.(thats if your claims of that the majority does not want it are correct)

The nice thing is gay marriage only affects gays who want to get married. The people who "don't want it" don't "have to have it", and are just more examples of authoritarianism trickling down to the citizen level. Trying to control others' behavior in tune with their beliefs.

and it seems that liberals think they can just pull an end-run around majority opinion when it suits them.

I'll take a quick step into the mindless dichotomy of partisan politics...

What would happen if I introduced legislation that stated only the top 1% had to pay taxes, everyone else got a free ride. Very popular piece of legislation, in fact 99% voted in favor! Because only liberals disregard public opinion, there would be no conservatives "pulling end-runs around popular opinion"???


Like I said, minority rights.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2392054 - 03/01/04 07:36 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:
Besides the legal fact that children are under the age of sexual consent, they are under the age of natural consent. They haven't even gone through puberty and therefore are non-sexual beings in their own right(though its the thing nowadays to parrot alot of sexual behavior at young ages). If theres a 14 year old girl whos past puberty and really wants to go get fucked, let her. I don't care who she does it with. I may think the guy she is with is a douche and that she is an idiot, but I'm not gonna try to legislate it.




I'd be willing to bet that soem children can reproduce, that is, have gone through puberty to the point of gamete-activation, at the age of 10, is that fine? What in your moral code makes the guy who screwed a 14 year old ok, but not the guy that screwed the 23 year old?
Quote:


And then people bring animals into it? Jesus there not even human. Legally they can't consent, naturally they can't consent. Marriage is a human made institution, who thinks their pets give a damn about it?




Marriage is typically a religious celebration and a sacrament.
Quote:


But if there was some asshole who wanted to marry his pet, let him. What difference is it gonna make? Its not gonna affect taxes, insurance, etc. etc.... Its a fucking dog.




Hrm, I doubt that many people agree with this.
Quote:


Marrying a dog would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture on the part of the human involved, for the human involved, with no actual changes or benefits. So what would be the big deal?




I never think people meant to marry a dog, or to marry an underage child. My point was, with the age laws, that they are arbitrary and based mainly on popular public perception of what is and isnt' wrong. So why can't we have anti-gay marraige laws fro the same reason?
Quote:


Well the US is a republic with minority rights. It sounds like you are looking for mob rule.(thats if your claims of that the majority does not want it are correct)




Uh, republic or not, the majority vote is what matters. Equating democracy with mob rule is ignorant.
Quote:


What would happen if I introduced legislation that stated only the top 1% had to pay taxes, everyone else got a free ride. Very popular piece of legislation, in fact 99% voted in favor! Because only liberals disregard public opinion, there would be no conservatives "pulling end-runs around popular opinion"???




Yes, this is the problem with democracy that, I believe, a mushmaster quote earlier addressed. If he could post it again, I'd appreciate it. If this happened, which it wouldn't because the politicans would quickly realize that they'd be funding their own campaigns, I'd say that the richest 1% should all move to a certain state, purchase it, and live there while the rest of the 99%'s country went to shambles, then, after they starved to death, the rich could move out and repatraiate the nation.
Quote:


Like I said, minority rights.



So, if the wil lof the people isn't done, and I've asked this numerous times to numerous liberals in here, who SHOULD have the final say? Should a JUDGE be able to go against an issue that was already voted on? Is this still a three branch government? It's WRONG for him to do that. IT would be like a racist judge allowing Klansmen to go free after lynching a negro. It's not their job to MAKE law, it's their job to enforce adn interpret the law.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2392333 - 03/01/04 09:04 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

I'd be willing to bet that soem children can reproduce, that is, have gone through puberty to the point of gamete-activation, at the age of 10, is that fine?

If she wants to I'm not gonna stop her. Nor do I think my tax dollars should, let her parents deal with it.

What in your moral code makes the guy who screwed a 14 year old ok, but not the guy that screwed the 23 year old?

What 23 year old??? And plus, my moral code has nothing to do with it. I already stated that I would probably think the 14yrold is an idiot, etc. My whole point was that you should not legislate morals.


Marriage is typically a religious celebration and a sacrament.

Its not clear what this is in reply to. But for the most part I think alot of religious folk are too semantically anal about the word marriage.


My point was, with the age laws, that they are arbitrary and based mainly on popular public perception of what is and isnt' wrong. So why can't we have anti-gay marraige laws fro the same reason?


Age laws are in place for "public safety" reasons, "save me from myself" legislation if you will(much like the drug war)... Popular opinion(and I question this as well) only decides where to place these lines.

These age laws may be arbitrary in where the line is drawn, but are not arbitrary in intent. If you can make a connection between public safety and gay marriage you've got a case.


Quote:


But if there was some asshole who wanted to marry his pet, let him. What difference is it gonna make? Its not gonna affect taxes, insurance, etc. etc.... Its a fucking dog.





Hrm, I doubt that many people agree with this.


Which part? Affecting taxes, insurance? I sure don't think any insurance companies cover dogs, I don't think you can claim a dog as a dependent. What I was saying is that all a "marriage" to a dog would be is some piece of paper saying, "Congrats, you married a dog" and some poor, fucked up soul might be a little happier. (You gotta remember, he is gonna fuck the dog no matter what).

Uh, republic or not, the majority vote is what matters.

So you agree that Al Gore should be president.

Equating democracy with mob rule is ignorant.

I wouldn't say ignorant at all. Replace mob with majority if its the words that you don't like.

If this happened, which it wouldn't because the politicans would quickly realize that they'd be funding their own campaigns, I'd say that the richest 1% should all move to a certain state, purchase it, and live there while the rest of the 99%'s country went to shambles, then, after they starved to death, the rich could move out and repatraiate the nation.

No doubt it would never happen, especially in this country. But hypothetically, using the same principles that you use as an argument against gay marriage, the populace could vote to put all rich people in concentration camps and confiscate their wealth. They could vote to invade this rich state... This is mob rule and this democracy without minority rights.


So, if the wil lof the people isn't done, and I've asked this numerous times to numerous liberals in here, who SHOULD have the final say?

Good question in general. In fact, I'd say that the will of the people should always be followed, except when that will infringes upon others rights. As far as who to decide whether or not someones rights are being infringed... Who would you have do it?
Personally I don't even think their should be a law for against any type of marriage


Should a JUDGE be able to go against an issue that was already voted on?

When was this voted on? Again in our hypothetical of the rich being ravaged by the poor, what should a judge do there?

Is this still a three branch government? It's WRONG for him to do that. IT would be like a racist judge allowing Klansmen to go free after lynching a negro. It's not their job to MAKE law, it's their job to enforce adn interpret the law

Correct, in this case I cannot remember where a law was made, only where a law was interpreted, as defined by you as the job of judges.



If I were to have to decide this I'd look at it this way, gay marriage does not infringe on anyones rights. A gay marriage ban does infringe on rights.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2392371 - 03/01/04 09:24 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:
If she wants to I'm not gonna stop her. Nor do I think my tax dollars should, let her parents deal with it.
[/quote
the point is that the majority feel that she doesn't have the ability to decide what she "wants".
Quote:


Age laws are in place for "public safety" reasons, "save me from myself" legislation if you will(much like the drug war)... Popular opinion(and I question this as well) only decides where to place these lines.




California voted, they said no gay marriage. Public safety, in your mind, doesn't mean eliminating the type of relationship in which a horrific disease spreads, nor does it mean stopping children from having sex with grown men? Weird idea of safety to me...
Quote:

So you agree that Al Gore should be president.




the presidential election is set up in our country that the will of the majority of the electoral college makes the decision. This is the only voting system that does this, not for issues.
Quote:


I wouldn't say ignorant at all. Replace mob with majority if its the words that you don't like.




If the majority doesn't rule, who does? Their is one clearly defined majority, the one with the most votes, but their are possibly hundreds of losing minorities. If we arbitrarily pick which group to listen to, who does the picking? certaintly not some entity which was democratically elected, right?
Quote:


No doubt it would never happen, especially in this country. But hypothetically, using the same principles that you use as an argument against gay marriage, the populace could vote to put all rich people in concentration camps and confiscate their wealth. They could vote to invade this rich state... This is mob rule and this democracy without minority rights.




Hardly. Who would do the voting, the politicans who were working for free? Who would do the invading, the military thta was working for free? when the rich left, we'd tell these people along with certain others that if they want to come and work for us,we'd pay them handsomely.
Quote:


Good question in general. In fact, I'd say that the will of the people should always be followed, except when that will infringes upon others rights.




So, if interracial marriage is threatening the future of my race, I can decide to have that ended too, right? since it's infringing upon my right to exist as a people (guaranteed by the geneva convention)
Quote:


As far as who to decide whether or not someones rights are being infringed... Who would you have do it?




I think we've covered this, I'd say that the majority should, you would say that one of then umerous minoritie groups should make the decision.
Quote:


When was this voted on? Again in our hypothetical of the rich being ravaged by the poor, what should a judge do there?




Again, the judge wouldnt' be working for free, neither would the police, so they'd be in Richland working for me and my oil-sucking capitalist pig friends. IT was voted on by the people of California. I'm not doing the reserach to find out when, but it's talked about eeverywhere that this issue is mentioned. That is WHY it is such a big issue.
Quote:


Correct, in this case I cannot remember where a law was made, only where a law was interpreted, as defined by you as the job of judges.




Nope, peopel voted to ban gay marriage in california.
Quote:


If I were to have to decide this I'd look at it this way, gay marriage does not infringe on anyones rights. A gay marriage ban does infringe on rights.



good point...

I've still never said that i'm persnally against the measure. I think that gay males are disgusting, the act not the people, as i Have gay friends, and I'd like to prevent them from "spreading" their ideology, however, I can't find one real moral reason to prevent them. However, if other arbitrary laws can be made, then I think we can make a law preventing gay marriage, if the majority of the peopel agree.

I'd be for gay civil unions, which give them alot of the same rights, minux tax benefits, for these couples. Marriage is considered by most to be a sacred thing, and most of these religions are not acceptant of homosexuality. Why go rubbing your decadance in others faces constantly?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2392417 - 03/01/04 09:46 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)


California voted, they said no gay marriage. Public safety, in your mind, doesn't mean eliminating the type of relationship in which a horrific disease spreads, nor does it mean stopping children from having sex with grown men? Weird idea of safety to me...


i'm guessing you are referring to AIDS. you know... the only people who are put at risk for getting AIDS when people have unsafe sex are the people themselves. if people want to expose themselves to AIDS, that's their choice. it's not as though the whole neighborhood gets AIDS when a gay couple, or even an HIV carrier, moves in.

you are aware that AIDS can and does spread through heterosexual sex?

If the majority doesn't rule, who does? Their is one clearly defined majority, the one with the most votes, but their are possibly hundreds of losing minorities. If we arbitrarily pick which group to listen to, who does the picking? certaintly not some entity which was democratically elected, right?

people have rights whether or not the majority of people recognize them or not. this is why this nation was founded not as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic.

is it your opinion that a majority should be empowered to persecute (and prosecute) a minority for consentual activity that harms no one?

have you ever used illegal drugs?

So, if interracial marriage is threatening the future of my race, I can decide to have that ended too, right? since it's infringing upon my right to exist as a people (guaranteed by the geneva convention)

:rolleyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2392798 - 03/01/04 11:28 PM (13 years, 1 day ago)

Public safety, in your mind, doesn't mean eliminating the type of relationship in which a horrific disease spreads, nor does it mean stopping children from having sex with grown men? Weird idea of safety to me...


No, you are confusing my explanation for why these laws are in place with my actual idea of public safety, which I never stated.

But I have an idea, lets outlaw being alive, that way no disease will ever spread :wink:... Ok, why do you call a post-pubescent girl a child? Did you use an arbitrary age to determine this categorization?


If the majority doesn't rule, who does? Their is one clearly defined majority, the one with the most votes, but their are possibly hundreds of losing minorities. If we arbitrarily pick which group to listen to, who does the picking? certaintly not some entity which was democratically elected, right?

Why is this in response to me saying that majority rule means the same thing as mob rule?

We don't arbitrarily pick a group to listen to, its based on whose rights are being infringed.


Hardly. Who would do the voting, the politicans who were working for free? Who would do the invading, the military thta was working for free? when the rich left, we'd tell these people along with certain others that if they want to come and work for us,we'd pay them handsomely.

No, you must be mistaken, in this hypothetical situation, (designed to use your concept of majority rule without minority rights in a different situation) I clearly stated a line dividing the top 1% with the bottom 99%.

Who would do the voting: The people.

the politicans who were working for free?: Remember, theres still money, but more importantly there will always be politicians.

Who would do the invading, the military thta was working for free?: The people, you act like theres no money in the bottom 99%..

Remember, the police, military, most politicians, factory workers, etc, etc, are all in the bottom 99%... And the rich wouldn't be able to bribe enough to make a difference.

The 'we' was cute, I'll have to give you that.

So, if interracial marriage is threatening the future of my race, I can decide to have that ended too, right? since it's infringing upon my right to exist as a people (guaranteed by the geneva convention)

Humorous indeed, but if all of your ethnicity decided to interbreed with other ethnicities, you personally would still be "a people".. If you died you would be tried in the ICC for said violations of the Geneva Convention.


I think we've covered this, I'd say that the majority should,

So the majority should decide if the majority is violating a minorities rights? Do you see how this wouldn't work.


you would say that one of then umerous minoritie groups should make the decision.

Have we been conversing while I wasn't around??

In all seriousness.. No, I asked you, remember, I honestly can't answer this question.


Again, the judge wouldnt' be working for free, neither would the police,

Right, we've established that people don't like working for free. But luckily this isnt the case. If this minority (the top 1%) was being attacked by the majority, and we used your principled argument against gay marriage, the judge would not be allowed to go against the majority.

I'd say poor rich people(doesn't that sound Ironic), your rights were infringed because you don't belong to the majority and nobody is allowed to help you...

so they'd be in Richland working for me and my oil-sucking capitalist pig friends.

Hehehe, who says you'd be invited to richland. You could maybe be a serf at best... Although if there was an invasion of richland you'd probably be most welcomed, though its not the place i'd want to be... And lets face it, you'd have a gun in your hand ready to shoot that aristocrat and take his money rather than work for him....

But really this whole things has gone too far, I trust(hope) you see my point that majority rule without any protections for minorities is unfair, but if thats the way you want it, lets at least be consistent. In fact the reason I used rich people as an example was the abundance of the term "liberal" in your posts and wanted an example that you could easily replace liberal with "conservative"..in the stereotypical sense of the words...

IT was voted on by the people of California. I'm not doing the reserach to find out when, but it's talked about eeverywhere that this issue is mentioned. That is WHY it is such a big issue.

(It was in 2000)...

This is a legitimate gripe. The majority decides something, but then a judge overrides it. If you want it to be the majority decides and thats that, fine, but you open the door for the "richland" scenario, among many others..

But if you want some recourse for the minorities affected(remember, we are all minorities in some sense) someone has to decide, and I can't tell you who that is, in fact I don't think that is an answerable question.. Thats the brass tacks of this quandry..

I can tell you though that any conservative would be just as quick to do, what you claim only liberals do, if it were there interests/electorate at stake... (I really can't stand the left v right bickering)

I'd be for gay civil unions, which give them alot of the same rights, minux tax benefits, for these couples. Marriage is considered by most to be a sacred thing, and most of these religions are not acceptant of homosexuality.

Why minus the tax benefits? Why not the same rights as marriage? These things have to do with government, and one of the principles this country was founded on was separation of church and state.

Why go rubbing your decadance in others faces constantly?

Marriage is just a word. No one owns it. Isn't a bit decadent to pretend like they do. Even despite the seperation of church and state, people, because of religion, want to dictate what others can and can't do.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,484
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 19 hours, 58 minutes
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2393689 - 03/02/04 03:56 AM (13 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

CAn you expain, in rational terms, why it is a crime to take pictures of a girl having sex 5 minutes before her 18th birthday, but not when it is her birthday? Arbitrary values. I don't really have a specific reason, otehr than I think it is disgusting, and that, to be hoenst, is only about male/male homosexuality. I, like most other guys, really, REALLY like watching 2 girls go at it. The hot college spring break drunk slut girls, not the ellen degeneres/rosie o'donnel types.



In rational terms, first, it should be obvious that having sex with a small child is criminal in that it victimizes the child. Second, laws need to be pretty black and white - for a law to be useful it needs to define in clear terms exactly what is illegal and what is not. Putting these together we are left with a situation where we need a law to prevent the sexual victimization of children that clearly defines what children are for the purposes of that law. Out of the many possible criteria that could have been chosen, our society has chosen age, the one that pretty much all societies have chosen. We can debate endlessly about what the correct age should be or even try to come up with something else to define childhood, but we have to choose something. Regardless of what is chosen you could come up with some sort of argument that the choice is arbitrary. To a degree it is, but given the necessity of a choice that argument has little validity.

If your argument is regarding morality, then we can point out that law and morality aren't necessarily related. There are plenty of immoral acts that are quite legal and there are plenty of acts that aren't immoral that are illegal. However, you asked why it was a crime to take a photograph of a person at one time and not a short time later.

Quote:

I don't think that my personal opinion here matters. What really matters is that if you don't think that, as I'm sure you don't, who would you say SHOULD make that decision? My entire argument against gay marriage is that the majority of the people in the areas where it is now a problem have decided that they do not want it, and it seems that liberals think they can just pull an end-run around majority opinion when it suits them. Who do you, and those liberals, think should be the final word?



First, I agree with John Stuart Mill's idea that there needs to be protection from a tyranny of the majority. Just because most people believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against in various ways doesn't make it right. In the US government, the Federal courts and particularly the Supreme Court are granted the power to overturn laws which are deemed unconstitutional. Because of the process by which laws are passed, the vast majority of laws overturned will actually be popular. But this is specifically designed into the process, and the framers of the Constitution were putting some protections in place against this type of tyranny.

Note, by the way, that the word "democracy" doesn't occur in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The people who designed our government had no intention of making the US a democracy.

While the current system is clearly imperfect, I haven't heard of one that I think will do a better job. If you can suggest one, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Quote:

Quote:

If you want to accept the idea that it's OK to have laws against things where there are consequences borne by society (e.g., drug abuse), are you not also opening the door to making similar laws against things like smoking tobacco or obesity?


I don't understand what you mean, re-phrase and i'll answer.



There seem to be two main arguments against homosexual marriage. First, it's icky and most people don't like it so it should be illegal. Second, some sort of moral argument is often presented, usually in the form of how permitting such things will lead to some sort of degeneration of society.

I think I've dealt with the first type of argument above.

Here I was aiming more at the second type of argument - one regarding social costs. If we accept the argument that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow results in unacceptable costs to society (whatever those might be), then what will be our answer when other practices, which even more clearly have costs to society, become the target of legislation to ban them?

Obesity is an excellent example. According to the medical types, obesity is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, avoidable causes of disease and death. If we were to suppose that public opinion became virulently anti-obese, it is certainly not inconceivable that we could see laws restricting the eating behavior of overweight people. Or perhaps punishing people who provide fattening foods to overweight people.

My question was, in this context, do you feel that society should have the right to pass laws against such things? Should the popularity or lack of popularity of the idea affect whether the law could be created and enforced?


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2393727 - 03/02/04 04:08 AM (13 years, 1 day ago)

*yawn* Exactly the kind of illogical babble I'd expect from you. Pretty much everything's been said already by others. There's nothing arbitrary about requiring informed consent. We may have to have an age of consent which may be somewhat arbitrary, but the reasons for having it is not. Since age is not a factor in gay marriages, we have no reason to enforce arbitrary values in such a situation.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 8 months, 25 days
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2394481 - 03/02/04 11:34 AM (13 years, 20 hours ago)

You know why there's laws against pedophilia? It's not to protect the children, it's to protect the pedophile. Because I will fucking kill him. Slowly.

You shouldn't, nor does this case represent, legislate morals. You legislate behaviour. I don't give a fuck if you do or do not think pedophilia is wrong. As long as you don't do it.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2394719 - 03/02/04 01:07 PM (13 years, 19 hours ago)

Quote:

FrankieJustTrypt said:
But I have an idea, lets outlaw being alive, that way no disease will ever spread :wink:... Ok, why do you call a post-pubescent girl a child? Did you use an arbitrary age to determine this categorization?




Do you know how to read? I said that I have arbitrary values, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.  That is the ENTIRE POINT OF THIS. I arbitrarily decide when it's pedophilia and when it's not, just like the law, and just like everyone else.  Using that same arbitrary decision process, I think that homosexuality is disgusting.  If guys want to be gay, thats fine, if they want to take a religious sacrament and twist it for their deviance, that is not fine. I decied that arbitrarily, conceding that their isn't really a moral reason for it. 
Quote:

No, you must be mistaken, in this hypothetical situation, (designed to use your concept of majority rule without minority rights in a different situation) I clearly stated a line dividing the top 1% with the bottom 99%.




Yes, I realize that. In that situation, only the richest 1%^ would be  taxes.  I beleive that the richest 1% would move to one state/region and segregate rom the union. All politicans, who are paid by taxes, would be out of a job, as would the police, the road crews, and the military. We would offer them employment with us in RichLand and they'd probably prefer that to starving to death.
Quote:


Who would do the voting: The people.




yes, but they wouldn't have any eelcted officals to vote for, any police to enforce the laws, or any military to defend them. So, it would be a moot point.
Quote:


Who would do the invading, the military thta was working for free?: The people, you act like theres no money in the bottom 99%..




YES BUT WHO THE FUCK WOULD PAY THE MILITARY? NOW THEIR MONEY COMES FROM TAXES ADN THE BOTTOM 99% ISNT PAYING TAXES. 
Quote:


Remember, the police, military, most politicians, factory workers, etc, etc, are all in the bottom 99%... And the rich wouldn't be able to bribe enough to make a difference.




hahahaaha .  Ok, this would be the choice of the police, the military and the politicans.  You can stay here, in which noone is paying taxes, and not get paid for your duty, or you can come to the land with all fo the rich people, and get paid handsomely.  You think that they'd stay? hah.
Quote:


So the majority should decide if the majority is violating a minorities rights? Do you see how this wouldn't work.




It's teh same problem that their is with utilitariaism.  Can you think of something better than majority rules? With majority rules, isn't the will of the most people being done?
Quote:


Right, we've established that people don't like working for free. But luckily this isnt the case. If this minority (the top 1%) was being attacked by the majority, and we used your principled argument against gay marriage, the judge would not be allowed to go against the majority.




The judge would be dirt poor very quickly if he was a judge in a civilization that had abolished taxes.
Quote:


I'd say poor rich people(doesn't that sound Ironic), your rights were infringed because you don't belong to the majority and nobody is allowed to help you...




"allowed"? So you'd think that the majority would want a police state, and the police would continue to function in this police state as they starved to death? Interesting.
Quote:


Hehehe, who says you'd be invited to richland. You could maybe be a serf at best... Although if there was an invasion of richland you'd probably be most welcomed, though its not the place i'd want to be... And lets face it, you'd have a gun in your hand ready to shoot that aristocrat and take his money rather than work for him....




Who says i'm not in the top 1% of wealth-holders? :smile:
Quote:


But really this whole things has gone too far, I trust(hope) you see my point that majority rule without any protections for minorities is unfair, but if thats the way you want it, lets at least be consistent.




I agree that the majority can, at times, make decisions that are against the best interest of the minority and impinge upon their rights. However, you styill haven't answered my question as to who makes this decision.  If the majority of the nation wants one thing, who is the individual who gets to say "Bah, fuck you, I'm right, ou are wrong".  Even if this issue went to the supreme court, thats still a majority-wins situation.  Lets say that the nation voted on a gay marriage ban, one hat did allow for civil unions, and 95% of the country voted for such a ban, then it went to the supreme court and the majority ofthe justices decided to keep the ban in place, what possible moral argument could youuse to justify going against the will fo the people? Also, who would make that decision? It feels like I've asked that about 20 times, and never got a reply.
Quote:


In fact the reason I used rich people as an example was the abundance of the term "liberal" in your posts and wanted an example that you could easily replace liberal with "conservative"..in the stereotypical sense of the words...




The liberals are the ones that are pulling an end-run around the majority of the will, acting outside of their jobs title, and breaking down the three branch governmental system.
Quote:


This is a legitimate gripe. The majority decides something, but then a judge overrides it. If you want it to be the majority decides and thats that, fine, but you open the door for the "richland" scenario, among many others..




21st time, if not the majority decision, then who?
Quote:


But if you want some recourse for the minorities affected(remember, we are all minorities in some sense) someone has to decide, and I can't tell you who that is, in fact I don't think that is an answerable question.. Thats the brass tacks of this quandry..




Precisly.  I can think of alot of flaws with the majority rules thing, but I cant' think of any acceptable alternative. Would you agree that in a majority-rules situation, the MAJORITY of the peopel are ahaving their rights not impinged upon?

Quote:


Why minus the tax benefits? Why not the same rights as marriage? These things have to do with government, and one of the principles this country was founded on was separation of church and state.




So, if we aren't going to change aspects of marriage that currently exist to modify them for this new definition of marriage, how will common law marriages work out?
Quote:


Marriage is just a word. No one owns it. Isn't a bit decadent to pretend like they do. Even despite the seperation of church and state, people, because of religion, want to dictate what others can and can't do.



Why isn't a civil union enough, why do they have to have a sacrament that is religious in origin ?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDeepDish
journeyman
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 55
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: ]
    #2397653 - 03/03/04 10:39 AM (12 years, 11 months ago)

having sex with a 15 year old is not illegal because it's morally wrong to have sex with someone who's less than 16. it's illegal because it's wrong to have sex with a person who cannot properly consent. the law has decided (perhaps arbitrarily) that the age at which a person can consent is 16 (or 18). the number may be arbitrary, but the principle behind it is not: it is wrong to have sex with someone who is too young to consent. there is nothing analogous to this in laws prohibiting sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender.

This is not entirely true, i'm sure a good number of people on this board had sex before they were 16, in a perfectly legal way. A fifteen year old can have sex with another fifteen year old without if being considered illegal. If the government based its law on your above logic, children would not be able to have sex until a certain age regardless of how old their partner is. I think the law is based not on the fact 15 year olds can't properly consent to sex, but rather someone much older may be able to manipulate them in a way society has determined as morally wrong.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Arbitary Moral Values [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2399510 - 03/03/04 06:35 PM (12 years, 11 months ago)

Ok, this would be the choice of the police, the military and the politicans. You can stay here, in which noone is paying taxes, and not get paid for your duty, or you can come to the land with all fo the rich people, and get paid handsomely. You think that they'd stay? hah.

No I just think that rather than work for these people, they'd opt, along with the rest of the people, to go into richland and take their money. The police and military have the guns, they've already been bought and paid for. And once the wealth was confiscated they people as a whole could say "Hey we just fleeced the top 1%... Now lets revert back to the old system of taxes so our society doesn't fall apart."

I never wanted to get into the actual logistics of this scenario, you could replace rich with poor, drug-users, black, mexican, asian, amputee's, middle aged white fathers, people who frequent mushroom growing sites... And for all of those you could hypothetically get a majority vote...

I agree that the majority can, at times, make decisions that are against the best interest of the minority and impinge upon their rights. However, you styill haven't answered my question as to who makes this decision. If the majority of the nation wants one thing, who is the individual who gets to say "Bah, fuck you, I'm right, ou are wrong". Even if this issue went to the supreme court, thats still a majority-wins situation. Lets say that the nation voted on a gay marriage ban, one hat did allow for civil unions, and 95% of the country voted for such a ban, then it went to the supreme court and the majority ofthe justices decided to keep the ban in place, what possible moral argument could youuse to justify going against the will fo the people? Also, who would make that decision? It feels like I've asked that about 20 times, and never got a reply.

Well in all actuality, its pretty evenly divided for or against, about 48 for 52 against I think the latest gallup poll showed..

If it were 95% that would be somewhat of a different story.

And as I alrady said a few times, I cannot answer that question of who decides. There will never be a rule that can work all the time. This stifles me completely and all I can do is opine about it.

I agree with the judge. Mostly because marriage as it pertains here is just a word(borrowed from religion) to describe a legal union recognized by the state. But And it seems the biggest argument against it is that marriage is between a man and women. The thing I hate about it is its basically a semantic gripe. I would not consider a marriage between two guys and a marriage between a christian man and woman the same thing at all. Just the fact that two guys get married in a courthouse automatically nullifies that marriage being a religious sacrament, and it has nothing to do with Joe Baptist's marriage or religion.

Its totally fine to have it legally referred to as a civil union, as long as the benefits are the same as marriage, cause again, this is in the eyes of the state, not in the eyes of religion. But I really don't think you'd see any invitations that say "please come to out civil unioning" Or hear "Hi, this is my wife Sergio, we are civil unioned." They'd all still be calling it marriage, and it everyone(save the state)would call it marriage.. Wouldn't this piss off the religious folk just as much? Do you think there would be an attempt to outlaw calling a civil union a marriage, in a non-legal environment?

So this just seems to me as an attempt at social control by a slight majority. Who are not losing anything by letting the other side win. Its either win-lose or win-win. I am never a big fan of people having their cake and eating it too. Cause when that happens, someone else is out a cake.

But again coming back to your question, I'd hope in a situation where people voted to infringe a minorities rights,( whether it be rich, poor, diseased, carnies, yoopers, shroomery members, NRA members, blacks, purples, women with beef curtains, baptists, etc. etc.) I'd hope there would be a judge that would step in and stop it. And for all the minorities, there'd most likely be a different judge that would do this.. Its unlikely that a liberal judge would defend the NRA's rights as its unlikely that conservative judge would defend gay rights...

Its fine as long as overturning a majority vote does not infringe on the majorities right's, and in this particular case I cannot see how overturning a ban on gay marriage harms anyone. Especially when it is a narrow majority, I say applying the cost/benefit formula is good for these situations. (But this is me, and I am not qualifying myself to make these decisions, but due to difficulty of this problem this is as far as I can go)..

how will common law marriages work out?

I think commonlaw marriages are a bit antiquated, and seem to cause more harm than good. I say let the dust collect on the books where the laws of commonlaw marriage are contained. Or let the states deal with it.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pope says US morals cause of priest pedophiles
( 1 2 all )
SeussA 1,431 21 04/20/08 01:40 PM
by afoaf
* No Gods (pt. 1) Abudiwa 824 7 04/11/02 08:58 PM
by Buddha
* Henry George and the Land Value Tax
( 1 2 3 all )
Silversoul 3,813 56 09/20/05 01:19 AM
by Silversoul
* morality and the law
( 1 2 all )
hongomon 1,500 33 11/20/02 04:08 PM
by BleaK
* Moral Truths
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Azmodeus 2,564 82 07/30/03 12:52 PM
by Azmodeus
* Be moral -- make a shitload of money
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 2,559 58 06/15/04 05:21 PM
by Phred
* Morales will not eradicate coca Alex213 489 3 01/23/06 12:42 PM
by Alex213
* Morales just gets better and better
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 1,608 20 02/15/06 06:35 PM
by blaze2

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,327 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.214 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.