Is Western culture being destroyed?

[numinus]

What is accepted as "traditional" changes as time goes on. Eventually - something that was novel and revolutionary and "liberal" is either discarded or becomes tradition.

Examples include:
women's right to vote
the demolishing of segregation
inter-racial marriage
inter-racial adoption

PRECISELY!

Something that is done over and over must conform with some logical purpose.

Which brings us back to the question -- what is the logical purpose of gay marriages to society?

 

[numinus]

How am I contradicting myself?

It was not a "right to a person" - it was, according to court proceedings, a right of her spouse to follow her expessed wishes.

You mean a person has a right to his/her expressed wish??? Is there even a right to die???

Legal precedent would prove otherwise.

That is a whole 'nother debate - one in which there are no clear cut right or wrong except it should never have gone beyond the local jurisdictions to be decided.

You are correct. If you pursue this course of argument, you would quickly realize that jurisprudence is on my side.

 

[numinus]

You're losing me here....my statement was:

I'm not sure how exactly your response relates when I was thinking more along the lines of compassion and simple human rights such as those enjoyed by a married couple.

The act of prohibiting a hospital guest is not a criminal offense -- hence within the province of personal injuries or tort law.

 

[numinus]

Terry Schiavo was in a severely brain damaged state - not simply in a coma. She was so damaged subsequent autopsy pretty much put to a lie the claims she had any awareness or cognition.

All in all, extremely tragic and bitter and sad. The only lesson we should take from this is: make a living will so that your wishes, whatever they are, are clear and written out.

This was exactly the medical opinion of my wife's attending physician -- that her brain was severely inflammed by the viral encephalitis.

 

[vyo476]

Which brings us back to the question -- what is the logical purpose of gay marriages to society?

Creating stable family units that are more capable of adopting some of the thousands of orphans in this country alone?

Promoting monogamy amongst the homosexual community, decreasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases?

Quelling the dissent of a vocal minority?

Putting the debate to rest so that other issues can be addressed more fully?

 

[vyo476]

One cannot legislate marriage for gays just because gays are capable of loving. It is legislated because of the rights asserted in the udhr and the rights of children.

Nothing to do with the church, bible-beaters, religion. Certainly nothing, whatsoever, to do with the gay lifestyle.

How many more times do you need me to say these before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the UDHR is imperfect?

That at the time of it's conception, homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder?

That you're building an argument based on a premise which at every turn refuses to take into account the other side's view of things?

We've debated this before and I'll admit that, prior to coming here, I had never considered why marriage is litigated. That said, I still believe that homosexual and heterosexual union institutions must be equal under the law, both in name and structure. If additional benefits must be applied to some unions because they are "child-bearing" than so be it; however, the present social context of the word "marriage" being what it is, it is inequitable to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals.

 

[Coyote]

PRECISELY!

Something that is done over and over must conform with some logical purpose.

Which brings us back to the question -- what is the logical purpose of gay marriages to society?

There's no "logical" purpose for women's right to vote. In fact, a perfectly "logical" argument can be made against universal suffrage in a society. In fact, "logical" arguments can be made against each of the examples I gave.

Given that, why must there be a logical purpose?

 

[Coyote]

The act of prohibiting a hospital guest is not a criminal offense -- hence within the province of personal injuries or tort law.

What's the point though?

Once one's partner is dead....what's the point?

What about those without the resources?


Why SHOULD it have to come to that at all simply becasue they are homosexual?

WHERE is COMPASSION?

 

[Coyote]

This was exactly the medical opinion of my wife's attending physician -- that her brain was severely inflammed by the viral encephalitis.

That is different - all tests showed that portions of Schiavo's brain had died and shrunk. Her husband had even taken her to undergo experimental procedures in an attemtp to stimulate some brain activity. This had gone on for years.

It was a tough case and a tough decision - I feel for all concerned.

 

[Coyote]

Creating stable family units that are more capable of adopting some of the thousands of orphans in this country alone?

Promoting monogamy amongst the homosexual community, decreasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases?

Quelling the dissent of a vocal minority?

Putting the debate to rest so that other issues can be addressed more fully?

Thank you - for putting it so succinctly.

And in none of those points is there any harm to society - only potential good.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have tons to say -- very little of which are within the comprehension threshold of that person, or yours for that matter.

On the bright side -- at least I have found the person suited for your intellectual level. I'm sure the both of you would never get bored exchanging ineffable twaddle.

In the post just before this one to me, you mentioned the golden rule, is this post to me an example of your interpretation of the golden rule? It seems like just another cheap-shot personal attack.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

An agreement between two consenting adults constitutes a contract that is ALREADY legally binding.

Yes, but that legally binding contract is denied to some consenting adults for no reason other than religious dogma. And that should be changed so that government is not enforcing the church's rules--that would be state religion.

One cannot presume a gay union as a marriage because of the numerous reasons already given.

You've given a lot of reasons, the problem is that none of them are valid. They are all based on your Num logic, your Num fears, and some really creative reading of the UDHR.

Nonsense.

Do you think that your simple statement: "nonsense" covers the subject adequately? As Coyote pointed out to you already, people like you shouted "Nonsense!" when women wanted to vote, when women wanted to own property, when black people wanted to be treated like human beings... It's bigotry that makes people shout "Nonsense!" about giving civil rights to others.

There are many forms of love -- adoration, agape, philia, eros, philostorgos, etc. They are different manifestations of a single human emotion -- all of which operate within their own unique purpose.

There are many kinds of love, or at least many definitions, for you to claim that your definitions or your experession of them is in some way superior and thus deserving of special rights is somewhat egotistical, don't you think? It's traditional to feel that way in many religious and ethnocentric groups, but Jesus certainly didn't teach that.

If and when you have straightened out your emotional baggage, perhaps you can proceed to appreciate their differences.

Anothere cheap-shot personal attack--ho hum.

Human knowledge has its basis from the philosophical tradition -- and is roughly subdivided into the fields of metaphysics, mathematics, theology, politics, ethics and aesthetics.

Western culture is inexorably intertwined with the judeo-christian tradition in the same way that the above fields of inquiry are related to one another.

I cannot help it if you employ prejudice to human knowledge on the basis of its nature or field of inquiry. Argue for your own limitations, sure enough, they are yours.

Well, that's a pretty high-falutin group of sentences, it reads like you looked them up and scribbled them down without internalizing them first. Your great comment (in bold) is totally false, "inexorably"? Give me a break, as the Christian religion continues to fracture into more and more pieces (more than 3500 now) it becomes harder and harder to even define "Judeo-Christian", is Santeria "Judeo-Christian"? How about Mormonism? As we assimilate more and more different cultures into our own we will gradually become something else, it's inevitable--look at all the sects that have disappeared or been absorbed down through the centuries. Even the Catholic church has little left of it's original form. You're afraid of the future, and I'm sorry for you because the future is going to arrive no matter how hard you try to prevent it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And what fields would those be, hmmm?

Well, actually, every field on which you have posted, biology for certain, comparative religion, reading comprehension, international law/agreements, the separation of church and state, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, philosophy, hermeneutics, cultural anthropology... it's quite a long list.

Nonsense.One of the most insightful political criticism of america came from a frenchman. Surely, you've read democracy in america by alexis de tocqueville, haven't you?

Perhaps we should take a poll here on the site about this, but after reading a large number of your posts I think that it's quite an egotistical stretch for you to compare yourself to Alexis de Tocqueville.

There is no shame nor humor in the fact that I know more about your country's constitution than yourself.

If you did, then no there would be no shame in that, just like my knowing more about your religion than you is no shame on you--or it wouldn't be if you weren't advocating ramming it down the throats of people in our country--that's what is shameful.

The fact that I'm not dignifying you're efforts should be clue enough for you.

Newsflash for you, Nums: There is nothing dignified about abysmal ignorance. And a person who deliberately ignores documents and statements made by the historical personages of his own church does not enhance his dignity or his education thereby. It my however pump up his bliss.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

One cannot legislate marriage for gays just because gays are capable of loving. It is legislated because of the rights asserted in the udhr and the rights of children.

Nothing to do with the church, bible-beaters, religion. Certainly nothing, whatsoever, to do with the gay lifestyle.

How many more times do you need me to say these before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?

Poor Nums, you almost got a thought, but at the last instant it slipped away to be replaced by religious drivel. It doesn't really matter how many times you post relgious nonsense--it still remains relgious nonsense, sorry. Gay people are human beings and no less God's children than you, they deserve the same legal rights under the law as everyone else and religion should not stand in the way of that even though many religious folks desperately want it to do so.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

PRECISELY!

Something that is done over and over must conform with some logical purpose.

Which brings us back to the question -- what is the logical purpose of gay marriages to society?

Equality in the face of religious persecution. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society, not allowing religious hate to dictate social policy even when it is the majority who wish to express that hate. Giving the right to vote and own property was opposed widely, the end of slavery too. Civil rights was forced upon an unwilling majority because it was the right thing to do. How else do minorities get protection from violent and hateful majorities? That's why we have our Constitution and Bill of Rights, so that every one has equal protection under the law. So far the religious folks have managed to abrogate our legal protections just as was done with slavery and the rights of black people, but we are working on changing that.