Question for american and euro secularists

[vibeeleven]

Why is it that you have different opinions and interpretations on ideals that happen to be shared by certain religons, namely christianity and islam?


Example:
If an american christian is against gay marriage, they are a bigot, while if a muslim were to say the same thing you would defend thier opinion "because that's the way thier culture is", or that it's thier freedom of speech?
What's with the double standard?

 

[PeteEU]

No both are bigots period. Both have the right to voice said opinion but they do not have the right to force said opinion on other people and society as a whole.

 

[tecoyah]

No both are bigots period. Both have the right to voice said opinion but they do not have the right to force said opinion on other people and society as a whole.

well....that should effectivley end this thread....but it wont...heh

 

[Alex]

Why is it that you have different opinions and interpretations on ideals that happen to be shared by certain religons, namely christianity and islam?


Example:
If an american christian is against gay marriage, they are a bigot, while if a muslim were to say the same thing you would defend thier opinion "because that's the way thier culture is", or that it's thier freedom of speech?
What's with the double standard?

I do not think that Christians or Muslims are bigots if they oppose same-sex marriage. I think they have evey right to believe what they want. When those beliefs are imposed on me or people in general, that is where I have a problem. People need to realize that their personal views and our legal system are separate issues. You can have your beliefs and allow others to have their own also. I think that when a person is truly confident in their beliefs, they do not need to impose them on anyone else.

 

[Gibberish]

No both are bigots period. Both have the right to voice said opinion but they do not have the right to force said opinion on other people and society as a whole.

Agreed.

If my religion states something is wrong that does not mean every person despite their religion should view it was wrong also or be forced to view it as wrong.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No both are bigots period. Both have the right to voice said opinion but they do not have the right to force said opinion on other people and society as a whole.

Why not?

The entire basis of law is groups of people getting together and deciding what sort of behavior they will and will not accept amongst themselves. There's really no difference between me fighting for homosexual marriage-- but against underaged marriage-- and someone fighting for the opposite.

We might have different styles of argumentation, and different social values in mind, but it's not a matter of one of us being wrong and the other right.

 

[Alex]

Why not?

The entire basis of law is groups of people getting together and deciding what sort of behavior they will and will not accept amongst themselves. There's really no difference between me fighting for homosexual marriage-- but against underaged marriage-- and someone fighting for the opposite.

We might have different styles of argumentation, and different social values in mind, but it's not a matter of one of us being wrong and the other right.

There is a big difference between same-sex marriage and underage marriage... consent. Is an underage person really able to consent to marriage? Gay marriage is about adults, not children.

The "basis of law is groups of people getting together and deciding what sort of behavior they will and will not accept amongst themselves" is a good point, but lacking an important detail. This basis can be a component of the law, but not the sole reason. Law must be based on some element of objectivity. Consent of the individuals involved is a good element to use for this.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

There is a big difference between same-sex marriage and underage marriage... consent. Is an underage person really able to consent to marriage?

What is the difference between a sixteen-year-old's capacity to consent to marriage and an eighteen-year-old's?

Gay marriage is about adults, not children.

I know. The problem is, when we analyze an issue like this, we tend to isolate it from other aspects of the issue-- so that we see the debate over "gay marriage" in terms of discrimination against homosexuals instead of in terms of the purpose of marriage and the social standards of acceptable marriage.

Could've said polygamy instead. Is it discrimination against Muslims and fundamentalist apostatic Mormons? Or is it an issue of society's definition of marriage?

This basis can be a component of the law, but not the sole reason. Law must be based on some element of objectivity. Consent of the individuals involved is a good element to use for this.

Certainly, but remember that bigots are no less objective than the rest of us. They're merely using different standards of comparison and evaluating issues on criteria that others ignore.

I'll admit that consent is a good standard, but there must be other criteria. After all, we must determine who is capable of giving consent, and we have to set limits on what kinds of consensual relationships and behaviors are allowed.

After all, we had that case in Germany recently where a man signed a form indicating his consent to be sexually mutilated, killed, and eaten by another man he'd met over the Internet. Should we allow this merely because the man signed a waiver?

 

[Alex]

What is the difference between a sixteen-year-old's capacity to consent to marriage and an eighteen-year-old's?

There may be none, depends on the person. The point is that adult homosexuals are able to consent just as well as heterosexual adults so they should be given the same option.

I know. The problem is, when we analyze an issue like this, we tend to isolate it from other aspects of the issue-- so that we see the debate over "gay marriage" in terms of discrimination against homosexuals instead of in terms of the purpose of marriage and the social standards of acceptable marriage.

Could've said polygamy instead. Is it discrimination against Muslims and fundamentalist apostatic Mormons? Or is it an issue of society's definition of marriage?

Yes it is discrimination against Muslims and Mormons. I can think of nothing wrong with polygamy if all individuals involved agree to it. I understand your point. We cannot call one aspect of redefining marriage a bad thing without questioning all other possibilities. I see nothing wrong with this. Redefining marriage in a variety of ways would not erase the current definition, it would only broaden it.

Certainly, but remember that bigots are no less objective than the rest of us. They're merely using different standards of comparison and evaluating issues on criteria that others ignore.

Give me an example of this please. I think I understand what you are getting at but do not feel confident enough in that to respond. (P.S. I never called anyone against different marriages a bigot, I do not believe that they are.)

I'll admit that consent is a good standard, but there must be other criteria. After all, we must determine who is capable of giving consent, and we have to set limits on what kinds of consensual relationships and behaviors are allowed.

Yes, I agree. Consent is only an element of the basis of law just as morality is. I did not mean for consent to be the sole reason for it. I believe that law should only be based on direct, physical, intentional, and non-consented harm.

After all, we had that case in Germany recently where a man signed a form indicating his consent to be sexually mutilated, killed, and eaten by another man he'd met over the Internet. Should we allow this merely because the man signed a waiver?

Yes, we should allow it. No matter how horrible I think it is, I have no business stopping it or punishing anyone involved. This is where I can separate different issues. I do not agree that a person should kill another person, but my beliefs do not overrule the rights of another person. The man knew what he was getting into and he allowed it. It was obviously his desire and I am no one to interfere.

 

[doughgirl]

“No both are bigots period. Both have the right to voice said opinion but they do not have the right to force said opinion on other people and society as a whole.”

Because I am against homosexualty I am a bigot? I dont try to force anything on anyone.

Bigot.....

“One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”

I might think homosexuality is wrong……..but I tolerate homosexuals. Really our laws force me to tolerate them. Am I not entitled to an opinion? Funny but you just expressed yours……What makes your opinion acceptable to give and mine not? I am suppose to tolerate yours and you don’t tolerate mine? Are you tolerant of my position?

“After all, we had that case in Germany recently where a man signed a form indicating his consent to be sexually mutilated, killed, and eaten by another man he'd met over the Internet. Should we allow this merely because the man signed a waiver?”

Wow………what happened I might ask?

Well in the United States abortion is legal. It is legal based on “privacy” issues………no one can tell another what to do with their body. So based on that law alone and if this had happened in the Unites States……the man should be allowed to carry out his wish. He should be allowed and any pro-choicer would back that one up.

 

[Thorgasm]

Doughgirl, the reason people say your view is bigoted is because it is based purely on emotion and not logic. Words like "abnormal" and "unnatural" tend to shed light on how anti-gay marriage proponents really feel. They feel superior and homosexuals are inferior. At least that is the perception that earns the bigot label.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

There may be none, depends on the person. The point is that adult homosexuals are able to consent just as well as heterosexual adults so they should be given the same option.

I agree with you, but probably for different reasons.

The biggest reason that people disagree with you is that they either consider

a) Traditional moral values to be more important criteria than either utilitarianism or concern for liberty.

or

b) The purpose of marriage to encourage procreation and a proper home environment for children.

Now, I lean towards b, myself-- but since homosexuals are taking it upon themselves to raise children despite their biological handicap in doing so, I think it's obviously time to allow them to marry.

Yes it is discrimination against Muslims and Mormons. I can think of nothing wrong with polygamy if all individuals involved agree to it.

That's because your primary political concern appears to be "letting people do whatever the Hell they want"-- within reason, of course, meaning that they can't hurt each other.

Other people do not share this belief, and there's no reason that "letting people do whatever the Hell they want" is objectively superior to "promoting traditional moral values".

Or promoting a specific set of non-traditional moral values, which appears to be where I come into this.

We cannot call one aspect of redefining marriage a bad thing without questioning all other possibilities.

But, just because we question possibilities does not mean that we must accept them. And just because we can change something doesn't mean that we should.

For instance, in my advocacy of allowing gay marriage, I am looking very specifically at what I believe that will do to my goals-- or at least, to my ideal of what purposes marriage should serve in society. Marriage promotes stable homes for children and cements alliances between families; allowing homosexuals to marry simply extends these benefits to somewhat less than 10% of our population-- since not all homosexuals will choose to have children and not all are on good terms with their families in the first place.

Polygamy is a different issue. I can see arguments for how it might either stabilize or destabilize American households; I can see how it might have economic benefits, but I can also see how most Americans would choose not to have multiple marriages and most who would belong to radical and toxically patriarchal sects that promote family dysfunction.

That is to say, I'm wholly divided on the issue of polygamy-- and out of a principle of general caution, I think we ought to keep things the way they are until we figure out how the changes would work.

Redefining marriage in a variety of ways would not erase the current definition, it would only broaden it.

Broaden, or dilute? Opponents of gay marriage are afraid that allowing it will dilute either our cultural appreciation for "traditional moral values", or that it will dilute the value of marriage in promoting procreation.

I'm certainly concerned about how other forms of marriage might dilute the purposes of marriage that I promote. How many sets of in-laws can one man (or one woman) defend and support? What good is an extended family if you teach half of your children to be spineless, submissive victims-in-training?

Certainly, but remember that bigots are no less objective than the rest of us. They're merely using different standards of comparison...

Give me an example of this please.

For instance, and to get away from the marriage example, racists. They think that certain hereditary cosmetic traits possess inherent value, and thus consider people with those traits more important than people without them.

You probably don't give a damn about those cosmetic traits, and you probably think that you are morally superior for it. Nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, the more physically similar another human is to you, the greater a share of genetic material you probably share. Valuing their lives above those of people less physically similar to you is an evolutionary advantage, as it means that your genes are more likely to be passed on. That's not a bad line of thinking, if your average knuckle-dragging White Supremacist could wrap his head around it.

Me, I'm a blatant nationalist. I make no bones about it. I think people who share a cultural heritage with me are more likely to understand the way I think and are more likely to come to my defense than people who do not. I think my people are more important than other people, mostly because they're my people. I don't care much about "race", but "nationality" is important to me, despite being a fairly arbitrary social construct.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter what sort of backwards nomadic tribe-- or futuristic Utopian commune-- a man comes from; if he marries my sister, I'll defend him against the entire *******ed Marine Corps if I have to.

To a lot of people, that just don't make a lick of sense. It's not a criteria they consider important when judging other people or the results of a specific policy.

I believe that law should only be based on direct, physical, intentional, and non-consented harm.

I think the law ought to promote the moral and cultural values I consider desirable. Most of the time, that just prohibits us from hurting each other and taking each others' property; sometimes, it most emphatically allows either.

For instance, I've probably got the loosest standard of justifiable homicide of any non-Objectivist I've ever met.

Yes, we should allow it. No matter how horrible I think it is, I have no business stopping it or punishing anyone involved.

I absolutely disagree. I think tolerating the killing of people and the consumption of their flesh for sexual pleasure is probably one of the worst possible things I think a society can tolerate, regardless of the victim's view of the matter.

This is where I can separate different issues. I do not agree that a person should kill another person, but my beliefs do not overrule the rights of another person.

See, I think some people just need killin', and sometimes the most morally desirable course of action ends up with a big pile of corpses. I'm sure the corpses-to-be would disagree, but I think my beliefs absolutely overrule their rights.

The purpose of the law, of course, is to promote a set of shared values that keeps the killing within controllable, tolerable limits. After all, plenty of folk think their beliefs overrule my rights, too.

"Rights" are nothing more than another set of beliefs.

Wow… what happened I might ask?

Convicted of premeditated murder. I think he's currently confined in a psychiatric treatment facility, but I could be wrong.

 

[Thorgasm]

Other people do not share this belief, and there's no reason that "letting people do whatever the Hell they want" is objectively superior to "promoting traditional moral values".

In my opinion, personal liberty trumps "traditional moral values". Morals are a social construct driven by emotions. Who gets to decide what is moral? The majority? Remember when the majority condoned mysogony and slavery? Personal liberty may be a construct as well but the only limitation is that it does not harm others. With moralists, they can extrapolate "harm" to society
when it really affects no one.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter what sort of backwards nomadic tribe-- or futuristic Utopian commune-- a man comes from; if he marries my sister, I'll defend him against the entire *******ed Marine Corps if I have to.

When it comes to defending your brother in law I am sure you still draw a line somewhere. It may be if he beats your sister or their kids, or other detestable actions.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

In my opinion, personal liberty trumps "traditional moral values". Morals are a social construct driven by emotions.

So is "liberty". You're of course welcome to decide that it's the most important social construct-- but you really shouldn't expect other people to automatically agree with you.

Or even for their definition of "liberty" to mesh well with yours.

Who gets to decide what is moral? The majority?

I do. Other people merely decide whether or not they agree with me.

On the other hand, whichever side of the argument is more powerful tends to win. Strength in numbers, and all that-- the main principle of democracy is making people closer to equal, individually.

Personal liberty may be a construct as well but the only limitation is that it does not harm others. With moralists, they can extrapolate "harm" to society when it really affects no one.

They're not "inventing" or "extrapolating" harm, they're defining it, just as you are. Your definition is more narrow than theirs, since it only includes physical (and presumably) financial injury, while theirs includes emotional or spiritual-- according to their definition-- injuries.

Tell me, if a man has ten million dollars in liquid assets in a bank and all of his bills are paid, how is he harmed by someone stealing ten thousand of those dollars?

He isn't physically injured and he doesn't lose the capacity to purchase anything he intended to purchase. Yet, you and I would probably both agree that he has been harmed-- as would the majority of people. Are we wrong?

When it comes to defending your brother in law I am sure you still draw a line somewhere. It may be if he beats your sister or their kids, or other detestable actions.

Of course I do. I draw that line when he hurts someone that either he or I is obligated to-- the former because it shows he doesn't value his obligations, and the latter by definition.

 

[Thorgasm]

Tell me, if a man has ten million dollars in liquid assets in a bank and all of his bills are paid, how is he harmed by someone stealing ten thousand of those dollars?

He isn't physically injured and he doesn't lose the capacity to purchase anything he intended to purchase. Yet, you and I would probably both agree that he has been harmed-- as would the majority of people. Are we wrong?

Yes, he has been harmed. He will have lost the said money, the interest he would have made on the money. His harm is not as great as somebody who only had the $10,000 as a a savings. The other harm is that his property rights have been infringed on.

 

[jfuh]

What is the difference between a sixteen-year-old's capacity to consent to marriage and an eighteen-year-old's?

From the perspective of physiology there is a big difference. A sixteen year olds brain just started it's emersion in adult levels of horomones where as an 18 year old, though still not fully developed yet has a much higher level of development and ability to deal with the high levels of horomones. In fact studies have shown that the ability to deal with adult horomone levels do not really mature until around 25+1

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

From the perspective of physiology there is a big difference. ... In fact studies have shown that the ability to deal with adult horomone levels do not really mature until around 25+1

So in that case, how is it that we can possibly justify allowing 18-23 year olds to marry?

The law simply has to make a number of arbitrary decisions based upon cultural values. Otherwise, there is no basis for laws that are necessary for relatively objective reasons.

Yes, he has been harmed. He will have lost the said money, the interest he would have made on the money. His harm is not as great as somebody who only had the $10,000 as a a savings. The other harm is that his property rights have been infringed on.

All of these forms of harm are subjective, however. Laws that prohibit them from occuring must therefore also be subjective-- and rely upon social definitions of "property", "rights", "theft", and "harm".

 

[Thorgasm]

All of these forms of harm are subjective, however. Laws that prohibit them from occuring must therefore also be subjective-- and rely upon social definitions of "property", "rights", "theft", and "harm".

Yes, they are subjective. Just as their house, vehicle, and educational degrees. These are subjective, yet supported by empirical data. You can actually see that they don't have those things. Social harm is not so. You can not definitively attribute through empirical data. Take gay marriage for example. It has no effect on straight marriage whatsoever. There is no data that would suggest otherwise.

 

[Iriemon]

Why is it that you have different opinions and interpretations on ideals that happen to be shared by certain religons, namely christianity and islam?


Example:
If an american christian is against gay marriage, they are a bigot, while if a muslim were to say the same thing you would defend thier opinion "because that's the way thier culture is", or that it's thier freedom of speech?
What's with the double standard?

Or you could put it another way: Why do Christians who oppose gay marriage think of themselves as standing up for what is right, while Muslems who do the same thing are viewed as fundamentalist radicals?

Through bias we tend to view those we agree with in the most positive light and those with whom we disagree in the most negative.

 

[Thorgasm]

Why is it that you have different opinions and interpretations on ideals that happen to be shared by certain religons, namely christianity and islam?


Example:
If an american christian is against gay marriage, they are a bigot, while if a muslim were to say the same thing you would defend thier opinion "because that's the way thier culture is", or that it's thier freedom of speech?
What's with the double standard?

I am not sure that anyone is defending Muslims. Muslims in other countries have their own issues that come with being a sovereign nation. They are bigots also. I don't think that one country has the right to instill their will on another.

Freedom of speech is a good thing. It let's you know where the bigots, idiots, and undesireables are. In America you have the right to unpopular speech. I am not sure why you think that unpopular speech should go unchallenged. People have a right to espouse their bigoted views. Other people have a right to call them bigots. Defending unpopular speech in the name of freddom of speech is not condoning said speech. I will defend the right to say stupid things. It does not mean that I am defending the stupid things they say.