Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:42:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
I will consider your removal of and lack of counterargument to the prior
text to be agreement. I’m glad I could be so convincing. ;)
|
You were just asserting that the US was a secular demo, no? We are. But
most of our FF were men of faith and our very existence was due to those who
were looking to practice their religion freely, so we have an integral,
religious history.
|
Which is all fine up until the point where the separation of church and state
begins to be eroded. That point has almost been reached, and, with President
Bush’s new Court nominations is in danger of being reached.
|
You are repeating simply the sour grapes of one group who isn’t currently in
power. Boo-hoo. Bush’s nominations are eminently qualified to hold their
positions. Even if Roe v. Wade were to be repelled, that still means nothing.
Why is it that a conservative court is tantamount to totalitarianism, but a
liberal court is normative. Sour grapes (putting it nicely).
| |
Mainly however, I was just teasing. And you responded to the points elsewhere
after I wrote my response.
| |
| |
| |
I also believe secular democracies are best. Democracies come in second.
Now, I’ve never supported religion-based laws per se-- I’ve supported
laws that are based on religious values. I think that there is an
important distinction there. I respect no particular religion, but
certainly I prefer certain values certain religions profess.
|
I don’t really see much difference here but it is a matter of semantics and
thus purely opinion based.
| |
Everybody gets their values from somewhere; that some get them from
religion is irrelevant.
|
Which I think kind of defeats the thrust of your earlier argument.
|
I don’t know if I’m really arguing anything. Everyone’s values come from
somewhere. A secular state can have laws based on values derived from
religion and not be a religious state. Do you dispute this?
|
I do dispute it up to a point. The problem occurs when laws are created that
best represent one religions values, potentially at the expense of others.
For example in the State of Queensland it is forbidden to sell alcohol on
Christmas Day and Good Friday. I think this is a law that is purely based on
one religion (one strand of it even) and should not be allowed. As an
non-Christian I ought to be able to buy (or sell) liquor on any day I choose,
regardless of the dominant religion.
|
But this is a state issue, not a federal one (as it is here as well). At some
point you are restricted by what the majority wants, for whatever the reason.
Motivation doesn’t really matter, whether religion, tradition, or superstition
based. As long as the law is within the limits of the Constitution (State and
Federal), your option is to get it changed by law. That is how the process
works. But it isn’t the process to try and initiate change via judical fiat.
This is the real reason why liberals are literally freaking out over
conservative judges: not because they will help initiate an executive monarchy,
but because their avenue of instituting change while in the minority is blocked.
| |
| |
| |
| |
But if we continue this conversation, I think it would be best to select a
concrete example and examine it more closely.
JOHN
|
Sure. Gay civil marriage. I believe you have made your opinions on that
topic quite clear before.
|
|
| |
I’m not so sure that my views on this topic are “quite clear”, because every
time that I try to articulate them, I feel that they are misunderstood. But
since you and I have never discussed them with each other, I’ll have another
go at explaining them.
First, I believe that the traditional family (1 husband, 1 wife, n children)
is the most efficient way to rear children and to perpetuate a given
society, at least in our country. There are other forms that work, but
ideally, this is the optimum config. I believe then, that the State has a
vested interest in promoting the most efficient rearing of its next
generation. If you dispute this, please cite a better system.
So, the State decides to recognize this most important aspect of society
(the socialization and rearing of its youth) and set apart the institution
of marriage. Yes, the intended goal is for a marriage to produce offspring,
but it is not a requirement.
So the State recognizes the union of 1 man and 1 woman as a special
relationship. This is most equitable; any person (male or female) can
choose another other person of the opposite sex, to be their spouse (notice
that sexual preference is not taken into account). So, a straight man or
a gay man have the same right to choose any female they want for marriage.
Now you say, “But what if a gay man doesn’t want to select a female. What
if he wants to marry a man? Okay, for the sake of argument then, the State
then decides to change it’s stance and recognize the union of any 1 person
to any other person. Problem’s solved, yes?
Not quite. Because now comes along a polygamist. He wants not just 1 wife,
but 3. So who is to say that his wishes shouldn’t be honored? And now
(you guessed it) along comes a
British women
and she wants to marry a dolphin. And the next thing you know, some clown
wants to marry his pet rock.
Here’s my point. The line must be drawn somewhere; otherwise the marrige
relationship will be meaningless-- it will be indistinguishable from any
other kind of relationship.
So currently the State recognizes a 1 man and 1 woman marriage relationship.
If that were to change in any way, I don’t see the justification for not
recognizing any relationship, no matter how inane. A 1 person to any
another 1 person recognition discrimates against a 1 person to any number of
other persons just as much as a 1 male to 1 female does against it.
So to replace an “inequitable situation” with another inequitable situation
is just pointless.
No doubt this is as clear as mud, but now it’s late and I’m tired...
JOHN
|
That’s by far the best summary I’ve seen about it from you. Not at all clear
as mud. I disagree with certain points but the argument is quite clear based
on your assumptions.
Firstly I don’t believe that a society composed only of nuclear families is
the best system. I believe a society benefits greatly from childless and/or
single people (eg. there is more tax money per child for schools).
|
I was speaking specifically to the issue of child rearing. I think having a 1
father, 1 mother family is the optimal system. Of course there are single
parent families due to death, and multiple parent families due to
divorce/remarriage, and other scenarios as well. But the one I believe to be
the best for raising a child is the one I described. I didn’t mean to suggest
that everybody should conform to that model.
| |
Personally I would allow for marriage any arrangement that is agreed upon and
does not cause harm for any of the members involved. Thus allowing polygamy
but forbidding goats (since a goat cannot make it’s opinions felt). The State
has no business recognising one sort of living arrangement over another.
|
Don’t you think that the State has a vested interest in the development of its
future generations? That to me is the whole reason for recognizing marriage.
If not for that, then I would agree with you.
| |
Of course, as you say, this muddies things so I think the best system is for
the State not to legally recognise any sort of Oath based union and recognise
relationships only on their duration. Marriage would become a purely
religious ceremony with no recognition in Law thus allowing each religion (or
areligious organisation) to practise its own preferences. Now that solves the
problem for everyone.
|
But a solid and stable family unit is the best foundation for a society, and I
believe it is in the best interest of the State to foster them.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
109 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
