California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Look folks, I didn't say what is or isn't right. I just am saying that you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others. It doesn't matter what the source of those "morals" are...bible, your mother, etc.

I'm totally grunching this total trainwreck of a thread (seriously, can a mod just rename it "lessons in logical fallacies"?), but it seems like we're getting into a cum hoc ergo propter hoc deal here.

That is to say, I agree completely with your first assertion ("you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others") while completely disagreeing with the second ("it doesn't matter what the source of those morals (is)"). In fact, it very much does matter - not only because there are (relatively) universal moral and ethical standards and there are standards from dubious or non-universal sources, but also because there is a stated dissociation from one source of moral relativism in the United States that precludes that from being the sole source of moral authority.

Let's look at it like this, since you keep bringing up the example: universally, barring exceptionally niche elements such as Satanists or whatever, people know that it is unacceptable and immoral (and unethical, whichever term you'd prefer) to kill another person. The reason is because that person has its own rights (which cattle do not share; cattle as we know them would likely be extinct without human intervention, and it is also a universal moral standard to separate people from animals in at least some regard).

This is not a strictly "Christian" moral. However, the overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage advocates openly (and honestly, which I find very respectable) declare that they are relying on a strictly Christian definition of marriage. There is no universal sympathy on this issue, and the relative moral outcry comes from churches (and some synagogues and mosques).

The two are not akin, nor should they be in the eyes of the law - a strict separation of Church and State requires that the state enact laws that utilize a moral authority more universal than any one church (or even any majority set of churches).

It does, indeed, matter which source is used for "moral" lawmaking.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm totally grunching this total trainwreck of a thread (seriously, can a mod just rename it "lessons in logical fallacies"?), but it seems like we're getting into a cum hoc ergo propter hoc deal here.

That is to say, I agree completely with your first assertion ("you can't subjectively remove "morals" from certain legislation and keep it for others") while completely disagreeing with the second ("it doesn't matter what the source of those morals (is)"). In fact, it very much does matter - not only because there are (relatively) universal moral and ethical standards and there are standards from dubious or non-universal sources, but also because there is a stated dissociation from one source of moral relativism in the United States that precludes that from being the sole source of moral authority.

Let's look at it like this, since you keep bringing up the example: universally, barring exceptionally niche elements such as Satanists or whatever, people know that it is unacceptable and immoral (and unethical, whichever term you'd prefer) to kill another person. The reason is because that person has its own rights (which cattle do not share; cattle as we know them would likely be extinct without human intervention, and it is also a universal moral standard to separate people from animals in at least some regard).

This is not a strictly "Christian" moral. However, the overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage advocates openly (and honestly, which I find very respectable) declare that they are relying on a strictly Christian definition of marriage. There is no universal sympathy on this issue, and the relative moral outcry comes from churches (and some synagogues and mosques).

The two are not akin, nor should they be in the eyes of the law - a strict separation of Church and State requires that the state enact laws that utilize a moral authority more universal than any one church (or even any majority set of churches).

It does, indeed, matter which source is used for "moral" lawmaking.

Oh now I get it. Picking who you can marry and sex are equivalent universal human rights...akin to being allowed to live.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Oh now I get it. Picking who you can marry and sex are equivalent universal human rights...akin to being allowed to live.

The fact that they're NOT akin is kind of the entire point - legislating against something that has no universal moral authority (as in, the current situation) seems specious at best.

Is this a tacit admission that you're recanting on the "it doesn't matter which moral authority you use" gambit?

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The fact that they're NOT akin is kind of the entire point - legislating against something that has no universal moral authority (as in, the current situation) seems specious at best.

Is this a tacit admission that you're recanting on the "it doesn't matter which moral authority you use" gambit?

My point was that moral compasses are different from person to person. Some folks may be pro gay marriage but against incest and beastiality and polygamy. So who's right? These aren't universal rights like "life". At the end of the day you can't just say "morals don't matter" and "some morals do, but not the ones from the bible".

[JonoBN41]

What the hell are you people talking about? I can't leave you alone for a minute. From this discussion, one would think it's already legal for a man to marry a cow and for a woman to marry a bull. Adding same-sex marriage recognition, therefore, would only allow a man to marry a bull and woman to marry a cow - which probably makes more sense than the other way around. Don't you just love barnyard humor?

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What the hell are you people talking about?

This made me smile.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

This made me smile.

He said what some of us were wondering.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What the hell are you people talking about? I can't leave you alone for a minute. From this discussion, one would think it's already legal for a man to marry a cow and for a woman to marry a bull. Adding same-sex marriage recognition, therefore, would only allow a man to marry a bull and woman to marry a cow - which probably makes more sense than the other way around. Don't you just love barnyard humor?

We are almost there!!

UK backs animal-human embryos for stem cell study

Associated Press

The rest of the story is here:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/5790852.html

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

We are almost there!!

UK backs animal-human embryos for stem cell study

Associated Press

The rest of the story is here:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/5790852.html

Good ole UK. I'm interested to see what happens.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

My point was that moral compasses are different from person to person. Some folks may be pro gay marriage but against incest and beastiality and polygamy. So who's right? These aren't universal rights like "life". At the end of the day you can't just say "morals don't matter" and "some morals do, but not the ones from the bible".

But I'm not saying any of those things - I'm saying that, when a law is purely based on a moral expectation, you can't use a narrow moral authority (such as a subset of certain religions), particularly an excluded subsection of moral authorities (such as religion in general), as dictum.

Incest and bestiality laws do not have root in a narrow moral authority - they are instead rooted in protection against predators for those without means to protect themselves (animals, children). Adult incest creates genetic problems that have no way to be monitored, and as such preventative measures are likely appropriate. First cousins are allowed to be married in many states, because that's (apparently) the scientific cut-off for safety. Some people can do heroin without harming others or themselves, but we don't take them into consideration for legislative purposes.

Polygamy laws originally had a similar intent, if I'm not mistaken - to prevent children from being leveraged into a polygamist situation. Whether that applies today, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to cede that point completely (it really is somewhat odd that polygamy is specifically outlawed).

This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.

Let me pose a somewhat hypothetical question:


Then what about cultures that are non-Christian (also non-Western) but are still very anti-gay? What basis are they using to justify their reasoning for being anti-gay? In these cultures the issue of gay marriage would never come up because the issue of revealing that you are gay could lead to death.

Are these cultures using morality to justify their reason, their religion, or their laws?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Let me pose a somewhat hypothetical question:

Then what about cultures that are non-Christian (also non-Western) but are still very anti-gay? What basis are they using to justify their reasoning for being anti-gay? In these cultures the issue of gay marriage would never come up because the issue of revealing that you are gay could lead to death.

Are these cultures using morality to justify their reason, their religion, or their laws?

These cultures have absolutely no bearing on American law, nor a significant effect on the American response to laws attempting to legalize marriage for homosexuals.

It's totally irrelevant, and it's 100% a strawman - my argument does not apply anywhere except within the context of the American system of law.

If the United States were ruled by a junta or were a theocracy, obviously one moral authority could rule without any exception. Thankfully, it's not, so your examples are laughably irrelevant.

[Rudey]

So we protect animals by slaughtering them?

And incest is banned because the government doesn't want to pay the costs to monitor for freak children?

Originally Posted by KSig RC

But I'm not saying any of those things - I'm saying that, when a law is purely based on a moral expectation, you can't use a narrow moral authority (such as a subset of certain religions), particularly an excluded subsection of moral authorities (such as religion in general), as dictum.

Incest and bestiality laws do not have root in a narrow moral authority - they are instead rooted in protection against predators for those without means to protect themselves (animals, children). Adult incest creates genetic problems that have no way to be monitored, and as such preventative measures are likely appropriate. First cousins are allowed to be married in many states, because that's (apparently) the scientific cut-off for safety. Some people can do heroin without harming others or themselves, but we don't take them into consideration for legislative purposes.

Polygamy laws originally had a similar intent, if I'm not mistaken - to prevent children from being leveraged into a polygamist situation. Whether that applies today, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to cede that point completely (it really is somewhat odd that polygamy is specifically outlawed).

This isn't about "selective" morality, it's about avoiding selective morality (using Christian morality) by staying away from stupid laws regarding wholly irrelevant issues like marriage.

[JonoBN41]

To take this discussion to its logical conclusion*, if an undershirt married a pair of long johns, would it result in a union suit (ie US vs Hanes)? Would it matter if the garments were male or female; gay or straight? Could either side win or would it be a wash, or would one side fold? Would there be legal briefs?

Discuss amongst yourselves. Personally, I think it's morally wrong for undergarments to marry.

*absurdity

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

So we protect animals by slaughtering them?

No - we protect animals by passing laws against unethical treatment. This is why it's legal to slaughter animals in the most humane way possible, and not legal to just up and kill an animal for no reason or with undue cruelty.

Animals are property, but still subject to cruelty laws. You know all of this, and that animal husbandry is not an analog in the slightest - c'mon.

Originally Posted by Rudey

And incest is banned because the government doesn't want to pay the costs to monitor for freak children?

... along with the corresponding protection of children from parents/other family members. Yes.