The entire moral landscape has changed

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

I don't think the entire moral landscape has changed. I think almost everyone in the US still respects each other's right to worship or not worship as we see fit. What may have changed is that those who want to impose their morals on the whole, the moralists, have lost some power. From a moral and ethical perspective, that's a good thing. Authoritarianism doesn't have a very good name.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

We are simply discussing the definition of "marriage," and I recounted the etymology; that is to say, what it means and where it comes from. It's held different meanings in different societies at different points of history. In our own, it has traditionally carried the particular meaning of one man and one woman. This has occurred over time for numerous reasons. Let's not get into those right now, since I'd like to tie this back to the thread title:

If the moral landscape has changed, why has the moral landscape changed?

To get the discussion rolling using the topic at hand: You might liken this to Obama's position on gay marriage - it has "evolved". What an accurate word. As Darwinism has served to unmoor most people nowadays from belief in Biblical creation, so it occurs with the Biblical definition of marriage. We have outgrown such myths and stories, and in dismissing them as superstitious lore, we also lose the lessons passed to us from collected history.

Why do we assume those lessons are helpful? We have dismissed many of the "lessons" of history and it has been to our great benefit. If an institution needs to rely on tradition to justify its own existence, then it has passed its time.

To me, the underpinnings of the collapse of most civil societies comes down to hubris - the collective belief that your generation is exceptional, with special knowledge and insight, and thus gives impetus to the rejection of the mores, practices and ideals that built the civil society to begin with. It's not a big surprise, it's who we are. The conflation of knowledge with wisdom is a mighty thin line.

Which ones?

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

So what weighs 21 grams?

HMM. Not the soul, according to the link.

[Ralonzo]

Did you read your own link?

Of course.

What's being marked "True" is that those experiments actually took place, not that the results were accurate or revealing.

This is a post hoc justification marriage that is applied to no one except homosexuals. The elderly, the sterile, those uninterested in kids, and even criminals on death row who can never even touch their spouses are all allowed to marry without protest.

And this is the case... because?

There are, however, many places where people fight against any sort of fact-based sex education and work to prevent the distribution of contraceptives.

Distribution? I was unaware of the pickets at the truck terminal. Sounds like a very carefully phrased thing up there. "Fight against any sort of fact-based education" to describe indoctrination of grade-schoolers, and "work to prevent the distribution of contraceptives" to describe full federal subsidy of same.

The staggering ignorance some people display over how to get pregnant is a result of that. My friend is a doctor, and during one of her rotations a woman asked her if she could get pregnant from giving her boyfriend a handjob in a jacuzzi.

You might be surprised. "Little swimmers" :))

We do legislate morality, but murder is the dumbest example you could have picked.

Not when you say things like that

Crimes with victims will always be illegal, that's not "morality" that's just building a society that doesn't crumble into chaos.

Is that right? Slavery is acceptable under Sharia, is it not? Is there no victim nor societal ordering there?

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

Marriage, historically, is the taking of a woman as property.

[JATMtheJATM]

i see imbondz jumped the shark this thread.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

And this is the case... because?

That's the case because the "Marriage is about babymakin'" argument was invented specifically to deny it to homosexuals. If the ability to procreate was really the minimum standard, those examples I listed would logically be barred just as gays are. But they are not.

Distribution? I was unaware of the pickets at the truck terminal.

Cute. There has been much legislation and litigation on the issue of whether condoms can be distributed at schools. (http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/pers...21Condoms.html)

Sounds like a very carefully phrased thing up there. "Fight against any sort of fact-based education" to describe indoctrination of grade-schoolers,

I'd much more characterize the abstinence only BS as "indoctrination" and its utter failure reveals it's fantasy-based nature.

and "work to prevent the distribution of contraceptives" to describe full federal subsidy of same.

I never claimed anything about the full federal subsidy, that's your own knee jerking. Look at my link.

You might be surprised. "Little swimmers" :))

I hope to god you're joking.

Is that right? Slavery is acceptable under Sharia, is it not? Is there no victim nor societal ordering there?

It's legal under the Old Testament too. Look at the societies that practiced it. They are subject to frequent rebellions and sabotage. That's what I was talking about, crimes with victims destabilize societies.

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

Marriage originally was a form of slavery for women. Some Christians still believe that.

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

So it is now my civil right to marry 6 different women???

Awesome, I can get used to the new "anything goes" society...

Actually, your biblical right to polygamy is still denied.

[ICRockets]

This thread is a perfect example of why I've given up trying to have reasonable conversations with conservatives.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

What is the point of having strongly held beliefs that you think is fundamentally correct and then not even attempt to change your society so that it reflects them as much as possible?

"Impose" and "authoritarianism" are harsh words. It can be argued the political right has honored the democratic principle in modern western countries more or less the same as the political left.

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

What is the point of having strongly held beliefs that you think is fundamentally correct and then not even attempt to change your society so that it reflects them as much as possible?

"Impose" and "authoritarianism" are harsh words. It can be argued the political right has honored the democratic principle in modern western countries more or less the same as the political left.

What if the strongly held beliefs are freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of press? This is the difference between us and the Taliban.

[MikeInRoch]

What is the point of having strongly held beliefs that you think is fundamentally correct and then not even attempt to change your society so that it reflects them as much as possible?

"Impose" and "authoritarianism" are harsh words. It can be argued the political right has honored the democratic principle in modern western countries more or less the same as the political left.

The point of your personal beliefs is to live by them. Not to force others to.

[DraftBoy]

Just a quick take:

1) "Marriage" is institutionalized as the fundamental atomic unit of the civil society with the goal of perpetuation of same. "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron, since there is no fulfillment of the institutional goal of propagation. It carries as much validity as "Goat Marriage." It is not incumbent on the civil society to break with established tradition, belief and wisdom, to accomodate this definition. This is not to say the civil society wishes to abolish the practice - just that it is not "marriage."

2) Nowhere in this nation is a woman's right to choose to not get pregnant being denied.

The civil society indeed legislates morality, or murder would be legal and I'd be allowed to strangle people who cannot form a cogent argument. (No inferences toward anyone here)

Now here follows the outlier examples, exceptional cases and sundry strawmen...

Save it, you're argument is based on fallacies entirely.

[Bellowing4DaBills]

The point of your personal beliefs is to live by them. Not to force others to.

Surely you would agree that our democratic process should never deny an individual to share his beliefs with others.

And though you may disagree with beliefs of evangelical, they certainly have the right within the democratic process to share their beliefs and convince their society to institute them legislatively.

It works both ways. That right leaning folks must have the same process available to them as the left leaning movement with the great idea.

[MikeInRoch]

Surely you would agree that our democratic process should never deny an individual to share his beliefs with others.

And though you may disagree with beliefs of evangelical, they certainly have the right within the democratic process to share their beliefs and convince their society to institute them legislatively.

It works both ways. That right leaning folks must have the same process available to them as the left leaning movement with the great idea.

"Share" does not equal "force upon".

[Tagir]

Just a quick take:

1) "Marriage" is institutionalized as the fundamental atomic unit of the civil society with the goal of perpetuation of same. "Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron, since there is no fulfillment of the institutional goal of propagation. It carries as much validity as "Goat Marriage." It is not incumbent on the civil society to break with established tradition, belief and wisdom, to accomodate this definition. This is not to say the civil society wishes to abolish the practice - just that it is not "marriage."

2) Nowhere in this nation is a woman's right to choose to not get pregnant being denied.

The civil society indeed legislates morality, or murder would be legal and I'd be allowed to strangle people who cannot form a cogent argument. (No inferences toward anyone here)

Now here follows the outlier examples, exceptional cases and sundry strawmen...

Following this logic, any straight couple that is infertile due to something physical or the fact that the woman has past menopause or the man has had a vacsectomy that gets married has the equivalent of a "goat marriage". So basically you are against any heterosexual couple that are both over 50 getting married.
Have you ever heard of groups of people protesting marriage of infertile heterosexuals? I doubt you have.
When you use procreation as the cornerstone to define what you feel is a legitimate marriage, that cornerstone crumbles.

I'd have to agree with Albany.

Marriage is about someone else not having a right to your bitch. The ring means 'hands off' to everyone else out there in society. Even in gay relationships, there's a bitch of the two. Gay marriage serves the same purpose as regular marriage: keep your hands off my bitch. She's off the market.

[imbondz]

And predictably the outlier example comes. A little disappointed that you didn't also pile on with polygamy, or rape and incest for #2, but at least we're going somewhere.



Strawman #1. Posit something I did not say, then argue against it.



Strawman #2. Second verse, same as the first.

We are simply discussing the definition of "marriage," and I recounted the etymology; that is to say, what it means and where it comes from. It's held different meanings in different societies at different points of history. In our own, it has traditionally carried the particular meaning of one man and one woman. This has occurred over time for numerous reasons. Let's not get into those right now, since I'd like to tie this back to the thread title:

If the moral landscape has changed, why has the moral landscape changed?

To get the discussion rolling using the topic at hand: You might liken this to Obama's position on gay marriage - it has "evolved". What an accurate word. As Darwinism has served to unmoor most people nowadays from belief in Biblical creation, so it occurs with the Biblical definition of marriage. We have outgrown such myths and stories, and in dismissing them as superstitious lore, we also lose the lessons passed to us from collected history.

To me, the underpinnings of the collapse of most civil societies comes down to hubris - the collective belief that your generation is exceptional, with special knowledge and insight, and thus gives impetus to the rejection of the mores, practices and ideals that built the civil society to begin with. It's not a big surprise, it's who we are. The conflation of knowledge with wisdom is a mighty thin line.

the truth is usually hilarious. couldn't agree more, i'm not nearly as smart or as articulate as you are tho. lol

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

Surely you would agree that our democratic process should never deny an individual to share his beliefs with others.

And though you may disagree with beliefs of evangelical, they certainly have the right within the democratic process to share their beliefs and convince their society to institute them legislatively.

It works both ways. That right leaning folks must have the same process available to them as the left leaning movement with the great idea.

One key word wrong. Constitutionally, not legislatively. If you think that sharing means what you imply, then our constitution puts all sorts of bans on sharing.

[Tagir]

What is the point of having strongly held beliefs that you think is fundamentally correct and then not even attempt to change your society so that it reflects them as much as possible?

"Impose" and "authoritarianism" are harsh words. It can be argued the political right has honored the democratic principle in modern western countries more or less the same as the political left.

Why can't we all just live by our own beliefs and let everyone else live by their's? I don't see why in America anyone thinks they can have religious beliefs that are true and are allowed to try and make other people see the truths or try and make them laws. America is founded on the exact opposite of that thought.