Gay rights?

[dong]

Um Brandon, I think you're confusing "amoral" with "immoral". George probably means that by considering this to have a moral dimension, the conservatives are mistaking the issue and subscribing to irrelevant ideas which only cloud debate.

Anyhow, George, to take a leaf out of Kelkat's book (well...not really), what do you think the ideal of marriage entails? The committed reciprocal relationship. Do you think our age of individualism has taken selfishness to such extremes that even this is being compromised?

 

[DJDizzy1]

Marriage has no religious overtones from a government standpoint. If it did then marriages could not be performed by a justice of the peace or a judge. Marriage is a commitment between 2 people for whatever reason they choose to committ. Nothing more nothing less so for the government to deny marraige to certain groups is hypocritical and really doesn't honor the idea of seperation of church and state.

I for one plan on having a traditional wedding with a white gown and all but that is my choice not dictated by the goverment or certain right wing groups. My choice and my beleifs do not allow me to dictate what anyone else chooses to do in their lives. I feel if homosexual people want to get married great for them, if you don't like it just don't R.S.V.P.

 

[Brandon]

Whoops! I read the post a little bit to quickly.

 

[Furious George]

How does this "amoral" behavior affect you? If someone wants to only think about money, social status and looks, isn't that their right to do so as long as it doesn't violently hurt anyone else?

Well, it doesn't actually affect me, but down the road, it certainly will. Parents make the biggest impression on their kids, and if parents put priority in the three aforementioned attributes, they will inveitably pass it onto their children, making the future just that much more materialistic.

 

[Furious George]

Anyhow, George, to take a leaf out of Kelkat's book (well...not really), what do you think the ideal of marriage entails? The committed reciprocal relationship. Do you think our age of individualism has taken selfishness to such extremes that even this is being compromised?

Well, it's hard to say. I don't know of many true 'reciprocal' marriages. Also, I fail to see the connection between selfishness and individualism. I've always seen individualism as self-concentrated, mature thought, and not necessarily 'selfish'.

 

[kelkat]

Marriage does not denote religion. Religion is what holds these traditions. All Marriage really boils down to is a lifetime commitment.

The what religion are you putting marriage under? It's not just the Christians who feel that marriage is between one man and one woman. This concept crosses countries, cultures, religion, and time!

 

[Word2Action]

Gay people have the right to be miserable in a relationship just like everyone else.

 

[dong]

This concept crosses countries, cultures, religion, and time

But certainly not all of them. You cannot argue for a universal constancy/prevalence of heterosexual monogamy at any level, because the concept is, first, necessarily transcendentally ideal (I feel too lazy to explain that...go look up Kant's ontological dichotomy). There is no base to arguing for its proven success or accuracy to any set of values with intrinsic merit, either. I'm referring to the fact that the cultures that are most powerful today are so because they had the concept of ownership and subjugated everybody else through the ravages of colonialism, not because they espoused heterosexual monogamy.

On the flip side, the concept of marriage as a commitment is fairly (but I would still suggest not entirely) universal as it does refer to a fairly fundamental mechanism of cognition and behavior among humans.

Gay people have the right to be miserable in a relationship just like everyone else.

Thanks for the much needed spin there.

 

[Brandon]

I will support gay marriage solely because the U.S issues marriage licenses and the government must treat everyone equally.

I don't see the point of this fight though (at least in the U.S). Marriage is a dying institution. Every year the percentage of divorces rises and lots of people view marriage in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.

While I could care less if marriage existed, I think gay men and women should be fighting for more important issues.

 

[sarah]

Well, it's hard to say. I don't know of many true 'reciprocal' marriages. Also, I fail to see the connection between selfishness and individualism. I've always seen individualism as self-concentrated, mature thought, and not necessarily 'selfish'.

It could easily go either way though, there is a fine line.

 

[dong]

George, Sarah, I would agree- there is a difference between the ideal of individualism in the liberal context, and selfishness, and that is essentially why I refer to the current state of society's general outlook as a perversion or an extremity.

Also, you're right, ideal relationships (in the Aristotlean sense) are very difficult to find, maintain and are therefore very rare. I put this down to a generalised lack of self-awareness and honesty due to behavioral subjugation to a pervasive value system. This involves looking for relationships for the sake of being in a relationship, which relates back to the notion of the social contract as a status symbol.

 

[DJDizzy1]

Gay people have the right to be miserable in a relationship just like everyone else.

LOL. But so true. :thumbup:

 

[tater03]

I have no problem with traditions. I just don't understand why my traditions of what marriage involves should be forced on anyone else. I'm sorry i just don't get why people are so fearful of gays marrying.

 

[kelkat]

What people fear is that the minority will continue to dictate what can and can't be done. Your idea of tradition, if you are referring to marriage, is the same idea as the majority of this country. So then, why is it even an issue?

 

[dong]

It is an issue because appeals to normative standards not only run afoul of several priniciples of moral philosophy, they do so because they entail discernible misconceptions. First up:

What people fear is that the minority will continue to dictate what can and can't be done.

Huh? I think you have it the wrong way around- what the (vocal component of the) minority are complaining about is the fact that it is the majority who by definition fall within normal standards feel that they do not need to treat others fairly or consider their point of view. What you may be referring to are those who engage in self-defeating exercises (like "gay pride") which entail a certain amount of hypocrisy- e.g. those who want to be seen as equals but also given special rights, which is not what we are discussing here.

The conclusion that presides over all of such debates is that we cannot purport to follow some kind of nomological ethical system. Our moral actions and considerations are related to the nature of our universe (i.e. ontology) in that this morality is what informs our actions and our decisions. In light of this, it is not proper to think that, as people like Hume previously suggested, and most people tend to believe these days, that our moral principles are alluded to by our "innate sense of right and wrong", which is one cornerstone of cultural practice- i.e. tradition.

This is a problem in that most people practice some kind of moral framework without proper consideration given to it, using tradition as an appeal to authority. This works only insofar as the moral principles denoted by the tradition are applicable such that it acheives the aims that it purports to- be a good moral system. But blind adherence to traditions more often results in the failure of the moral system. Why it is not an issue is because it is left unquestioned.

This is not to say that all traditions should be deconstructed. But I would promote awareness at all times to prevent the hypocrisy of purporting to work for the good of man and instead causing misery and suffering.