tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post6120105743454243783..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Is the "freemale" a fiction?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50296573968623802302008-07-26T21:26:00.000+10:002008-07-26T21:26:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-Basically, you continue to make assertio...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>Basically, you continue to make assertions with absolutely no evidence.<BR/><BR/>You come off as if you have some power to see into the future.<BR/><BR/>If someone can't make their marriage work then perhaps they should try looking to themselves.<BR/>You know, take some responsibility for their own lives. Not look for scapegoats for their failure.<BR/><BR/>The impression I get from all your comments is that you're also the type who would come down on homosexuals for being promiscuous and unable to settle for being with one person.<BR/><BR/>In other word, whichever way they turn they just can't win.<BR/><BR/>You are impervious to logic. Any time a logical fallacy is pointed out to you, you never acknowledge any fault in your reasoning.<BR/>You just continue to trot them out over and over.<BR/><BR/>You can rant and rave all you like, the world is moving on.<BR/><BR/>Suck it up.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02113192159669193981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2008668813555425982008-07-26T20:31:00.000+10:002008-07-26T20:31:00.000+10:00apashiol,I give you an A for effort. I would surm...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>I give you an A for effort. <BR/><BR/>I would surmise that the divorce rate decline in liberal states has more to do with less marriage than same-sex marriage.<BR/><BR/>Your argument for the stability and committment gay "marriage" would provide would be welcomed <I>if</I> that was the actual argument that homosexual advocates made, but it isn't. <BR/><BR/>Instead, the argument goes something like this:<BR/><BR/>"We want IT and it is only fair and equal for us to get it!." <BR/><BR/>Then it follows:<BR/><BR/>"And by the way, that institution of marriage is mighty bigoted and discriminatory, but we want in the club too. As for the other unions, that's just slippery-slope logical fallacies.<BR/><BR/>So you see the homosexual's dilemma? They, like you, want something that is of no real value to themselves. Marriage and homosexuality are antithetical, but your ideology doesn't allow such limitation.<BR/><BR/>And only now, 49 comments in, do you reluctantly acknowledge something significant and UNEQUAL in the man/woman union. But how could something so obvious escape your notice? <BR/><BR/>And don't you think when you decide to radically change or perhaps abolish a unique and UNEQUALED tradition, you are required to have the intellectual responsibility to acknowledge the possible repercussions of such a change even though you stand indifferent?<BR/><BR/><B>Will gay "marriage" enhance the institution of marriage? If so, how?</B><BR/><BR/>If not, then gay "marriage" is glorified self-gratification.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-11440322102645156522008-07-26T15:58:00.000+10:002008-07-26T15:58:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-Ultimately, it comes down to my realisat...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it comes down to my realisation that heterosexual monogamy as evolved for good reason. <BR/><BR/>It's not something really fragile but a system that arose because it did what was required of it and did it very well. <BR/>There were certain aspects of the institution that were unfair to women, such as the loss of rights that happened when women married. Personally I feel that most of those inequalities have been dealt with.<BR/><BR/>When you say;<BR/><BR/>"Seemingly no tradition is safe if the most legitimate and established tradition can be overturned through sheer force?"<BR/><BR/>Frankly, you're being somewhat hysterical now. <BR/>The proposal is to extend an existing right, not <B>abolish</B> it.<BR/><BR/>Homosexuals are basically saying;<BR/><BR/>'Hey, we also think it's a good thing to find one person and make a commitment to them, and we want to be able to do that too! <BR/>That is actually <B>confirmation</B> of the worth of the basic idea of marriage.<BR/><BR/>Do you applaud their wish for stability and responsibility?<BR/><BR/>No! Instead you indulge paranoid fantasies.<BR/> <BR/>You talk as if heterosexual marriage is like Tinkerbelle in 'Peter Pan'. <BR/>If people stop saying 'I believe! I believe! I believe!' it is going to just fade away.<BR/><BR/>You ask what tradition is safe from my indifference?<BR/><BR/>The tradition of pluralistic democracy.<BR/><BR/>I understand that the greatest danger in a democracy is what has been described as the 'Tyranny of the Majority'.<BR/><BR/><B>You</B> are a perfect example of that.<BR/><BR/>You are part of that majority, heterosexuals. and in order to deny a right to a minority you try to whip up irrational fear and moral panic.<BR/><BR/>This is obvious from your poor grasp of logic.<BR/><BR/>I've taken the time to actually see if there is any empirical basis for your fears.<BR/><BR/>One study from Scandinavia shows "....that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had <B>gone up</B>, and rates of heterosexual divorce had <B>gone down</B> - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage."<BR/><BR/>Figures for Massachusetts show "In the first two years of same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the rate of divorce showed a steady <B>decline</B> making it likely that Massachusetts will continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation."<BR/><BR/>"Among those U.S. states that are most opposed to same-sex marriage which have also provided divorce data for the time period — Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Texas — the average divorce rate (unadjusted for population changes) for 2004 and 2005 <B>increased</B> 1.75%. This group contains 4 of the 5 states with the <B>highest</B> divorce rate increases in the U.S. during 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005."<BR/><BR/>If the states that are most opposed to same-sex marriage show <I>increases</I> in divorce rates, you can't blame that on homosexuals.<BR/><BR/>If the states that are most <I>tolerant</I> to same-sex marriage also have the <I>lowest</I> divorce rates, I would counter that it is that tolerance that helps them make their marriages work.<BR/><BR/>Vice versa, those states least tolerant to change have worse divorce rates because that <I>intolerance</I> in their characters it more difficult for them to make their marriages work.<BR/><BR/>After all marriage entails the ability to give and take. Tolerance.<BR/><BR/>My interpretation of the data is more logically consistent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-2664328322466201532008-07-26T06:04:00.000+10:002008-07-26T06:04:00.000+10:00apashiol,You say,As to your question why I am so a...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>You say,<BR/><BR/><I>As to your question why I am so adamant about pushing for homosexual marriage, it's more that I do not see any reason why I should fight against the changes.<BR/>I don't feel threatened by the proposed changes. I suppose on this matter tradition isn't important for me.</I><BR/><BR/>And that's the entire debate. You care not for one of the bedrock traditions of our civilization and hence neither do you care for the institution that perpetuates it and so you care not whether it is abolished.<BR/><BR/>The question that arises is WHAT TRADITION is safe from your indifference? Seemingly no tradition is safe if the most legitimate and established tradition can be overturned through sheer force? Forces that are, at least in America, nondemocratic and tyrannical.<BR/><BR/>And so it is not a stretch to see those that preach "autonomy" and nondiscrimination as <I>highest goods</I> as those who will suppress the freedoms that give the rest of us meaning in life.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-91752999719992822532008-07-25T23:20:00.000+10:002008-07-25T23:20:00.000+10:00Thordaddy- If the basis of your objection is the m...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/> If the basis of your objection is the man /woman idea then you can find same-sex marriages in Africa, among the indigenous North Americans and the Chinese.<BR/><BR/>Obviously these arrangements had nothing to do with the Liberal paradigm.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage" REL="nofollow">See here for examples</A><BR/><BR/>When it comes down to it, the marriage homosexuals want is more like the customary marriages in their own countries than those to be found among African peoples.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps confronted with this you will insist upon what was traditional for your society.<BR/>All I can say to that is tradition is custom.<BR/>Customs change. All traditions had to start sometime.<BR/><BR/>If homosexuals want to have legal recognition from the state for their unions it will depend upon the particular constitutions of their nation. Are those constitutions set up to protect and uphold one particular tradition or do they allow for a plurality of traditions?<BR/><BR/>If the constitution allows for a plurality of traditions, then it becomes difficult to argue for the privileging of one tradition over the rest. <BR/>It then becomes a matter of showing how state recognition of what would essentially be a new tradition could undermine the basic principles upon which that nation is founded.<BR/><BR/>If this can't be shown then it seems the only alternative is to live and let live. Tolerance.<BR/><BR/>If it does happen and you find it unbearable, you could always create your own community, perhaps along the lines of the Pennsylvania Dutch people who organize their communities around their traditions while still falling under the umbrella of the United States.<BR/><BR/>I don't think however that such drastic measures would be warranted. If the tradition is attractive and viable it will survive. Heterosexual monogamous marriage strikes me as one such tradition.<BR/><BR/>As to your question why I am so adamant about pushing for homosexual marriage, it's more that I do not see any reason why I should fight against the changes.<BR/>I don't feel threatened by the proposed changes. I suppose on this matter tradition isn't important for me.<BR/><BR/>The man/woman union is the obvious option for <I>heterosexual</I> men and women.<BR/><BR/>Allowing homosexual men and women to create their own alternative seems perfectly compatible with pluralistic democratic principles to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-87240323480186122082008-07-25T21:06:00.000+10:002008-07-25T21:06:00.000+10:00apashiol,I am for homosexuals following the same r...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>I am for homosexuals following the same rules as the rest of us (equal individual rights).<BR/><BR/>I also accept the idea that some churches may allow homosexuals to exchange vows and purport to create a union with God (freedom of religion and autonomy).<BR/><BR/>I also accept that the <I>fundamental</I> man/woman union in marriage IS NOT malleable (rock solid tradition). And it is upon those that claim such malleability to show where in the history of marriage has its essence every been changed in this regard until now?<BR/><BR/>The first two are UNDENIABLE TRUTHS. The last one is what you believe can not only be debated, but radically changed.<BR/><BR/>The question becomes by what thought process do you think this rock solid tradition of the man/woman union being the bedrock of marriage can be CHANGED?<BR/><BR/>By what moral, scientific or legal argument can you claim that a he/he or she/she union should be treated equally and then fairly to that of a man/woman union? What is your logic outside the liberal paradigm?<BR/><BR/>The man/woman union HAS NO EQUAL and therefore such is self-evidently NOT the SAME as a he/he or she/she union. With this acknowledged truth you must then justify why we are to act as though they are the same and treat such accordingly? Why would we treat the fundamental human ingredients in marriage (man/woman union) as though they could be modified and not change the entire flavor of the recipe?<BR/><BR/>Your justification is one of simple LIBERAL assertion. You claim man and woman to be fundamentally the same ingredient. Voila, marriage can accept same-sex unions and NOTHING will change.<BR/><BR/>Which makes me wonder why you are so adamant about pushing for homosexual "marriage" in the first place since nothing will really change?Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-45685758165540661102008-07-25T19:35:00.000+10:002008-07-25T19:35:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-I also notice that you you have vacillat...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>I also notice that you you have vacillated between claiming mine is an ideology of; <BR/>'autonomy as highest good'<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>'Your truth is the ideology of autonomy and non-discrimination as highest goods. Why are you so afraid to take claim of your first principles?'<BR/><BR/>Let me be clear. <BR/><BR/>My only problem is when you say 'ideology of highest good'.<BR/><BR/>The definition of ideology is an organised collection of ideas. Not just <B>one</B> idea.<BR/><BR/><I>My</I> ideology is a belief in Individual rights, religious liberty and personal autonomy.<BR/>All of these ideas are complimentary.<BR/><BR/>Individual rights are based on the status of being a human being.<BR/><BR/>Religious liberty is the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose and crucially the freedom to <B>not</B> practice any religion.<BR/><BR/>Personal autonomy implicitly accepts that you can voluntarily give up some autonomy, as in marry someone.<BR/><BR/>When you keep banging on about 'autonomy as highest good' you are tilting at windmills. You are fighting an imaginary enemy.<BR/><BR/>Hard though it may be for you to fathom, some people are capable of nuance in their thought.<BR/><BR/>Insisting that someone is elevating autonomy as the highest good is <B>your</B> assertion. As such you distort someone's position and then argue against it.<BR/><BR/>This is a Straw Man Argument and as such a logical fallacy.<BR/><BR/>One thing that is conspicuous by it's absence is a proposal by you of an alternative vision.<BR/><BR/>What would <I>you</I> like to see?<BR/><BR/>A Fascist dictatorship?<BR/><BR/>A Theocracy?<BR/><BR/>Would you like to see all homosexuals driven into the sea?<BR/><BR/>What? What are you actually <B>for</B>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9324335553671562872008-07-25T18:18:00.000+10:002008-07-25T18:18:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-You talk about marriage as if it was dis...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>You talk about marriage as if it was <I>discovered</I> out there rather than see it for what it is.<BR/>A Human creation.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, marriage can <I>only</I> work for those who believe in it. It's not <B>magic</B>.<BR/>People makes vows to each other. They give their word that they will stay faithful.<BR/>If they aren't the type of people who, once they've given their word, really work hard to make it come true then what force will it have?<BR/><BR/>It comes down to <I>are you the type of person who doesn't give you word lightly</I>?<BR/><BR/>You said this to me, which shows your naiveté and lack of historical knowledge;<BR/><BR/>"You think you can redefine marriage to mean what it has never meant before and then arrogantly act as if it has always had that meaning."<BR/><BR/>For most of Western history marriage was arranged by families. The couple had no say and didn't choose to marry for romantic reasons. Marriage functioned to create economic liaisons and ties between families.<BR/><BR/>It was in the 12th century that troubadours created the idea of courtly love. These poets sang about how the love for a woman could be ennobling and a force for moral good. If anything the church of the time was against this. Often because the people who practised it had married by arrangement of their families and felt nothing for their partners. It was seen as a <I>threat</I> to marriage.<BR/>It was only as time went by that people started to marry for love, often against the wishes of their families.<BR/><BR/>It still took centuries for marriage to evolve into what it is today. The union of two people who love each other, and not an economic arrangement. <BR/><BR/>In fact, legally speaking, under the laws of coverture, a woman's rights were subsumed to the rights of her husband once married. This was the law in England and the United States. These laws were relatively recently overturned in the United States. By the <I>original</I> feminists.<BR/><BR/>Check this:<BR/>http://womenshistory.about.com/od/laws/g/coverture.htm<BR/><BR/>So you see, if you're going to talk about <B>marriage</B>, you have to specify <I>where</I> and <I>when</I> you are talking about.<BR/><BR/>So you see, <B>society</B> has been redefining what marriage is for centuries now. <BR/><BR/>It is <B>you</B> who "....arrogantly act as if it has always had that meaning."<BR/><BR/>Educate yourself man.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, when you say to Mark;<BR/><BR/>"Those who claim "autonomy" as highest good are proclaiming their ability to purposely evolve regardless of environment/culture."- You display your woeful lack of understanding of exactly what it is to be human.<BR/><BR/>It is precisely the fact that humans have purposely changed our environment/culture. That is the defining characteristic of humanity. Why should we stop now?<BR/><BR/>If it were down to people like you, we would still be roaming naked in the savannahs of Africa.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66729034571063317912008-07-25T08:25:00.000+10:002008-07-25T08:25:00.000+10:00Mr. Richardson,I think the contradiction between e...Mr. Richardson,<BR/><BR/>I think the contradiction between evolutionary theory and autonomy is not as important as its synergy with the nondiscrimination aspect of modern liberalism.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the contradictory notion of MET and "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I> is instead replaced by the fascinating notion of the inexplicable transcending of evolution itself. Those who claim "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I> are proclaiming their ability to <B>purposely</B> evolve regardless of environment/culture.<BR/><BR/>These individuals transcend the playing field while the rest of us are hopelessly stuck in lives of...?Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-85121259164012856472008-07-25T08:18:00.000+10:002008-07-25T08:18:00.000+10:00apashiol,You said,So you see. I do believe that ma...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/><I>So you see. I do believe that marriage can be a good thing for those who believe in it.<BR/>Both for the individuals and for society.</I><BR/><BR/>To which I retorted,<BR/><BR/><B>[N]or do you proclaim anything inherently good about the institution of marriage.</B><BR/><BR/>I don't see the problem. You think marriage is <I>good</I> if the people who are married think it's <I>good</I>. But this speaks nothing to the inherent <I>goodness</I> of institution of marriage.<BR/><BR/>So my notion still stands. There is, in your belief system, nothing inherently <I>good</I> about homosexuality or the institution of marriage yet you advocate for the <I>goodness</I> of homosexual "marriage" because homosexuals believe it is good for them and society. The question is thus answered. <BR/><BR/>How do you derive <I>goodness</I> from something that has no inherent <I>good</I>?<BR/><BR/>Because you can't concede the inherent <I>goodness</I> of the institution of marriage, the "goodness" in homosexual "marriage" must come from an external source, namely, the IDEOLOGY that pushes this radical change.<BR/><BR/>Your truth is the ideology of autonomy and nondiscrimination as <I>highest goods</I>. Why are you so afraid to take claim of your first principles?Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-46207513309166621632008-07-25T01:42:00.000+10:002008-07-25T01:42:00.000+10:00Mark-I don't find it hard to see how the ability t...Mark-<BR/><BR/>I don't find it hard to see how the ability to evaluate possible options and choose which is most apt to give you the result you desire could be selected for. That kind of flexibility would have obvious survival value. Hence a certain amount of free will.<BR/><BR/>Ditto for the ability to inhibit impulses and for that power of veto to be under conscious control. I don't say we can choose what thoughts we have and what emotions we feel. Rather we can choose whether to act on them. <BR/><BR/>Nowhere have I said that we can decide what our natures could be and then remake ourselves according to our wills. If I believed that then it would be possible for a homosexual to decide to be heterosexual.<BR/><BR/>I have a naturalistic understanding of the world. If even crows can solve problems and make tools then I don't see any problem regarding human creativity.<BR/><BR/>I think the problem is your understanding of evolution.<BR/><BR/>Because the creative side of us is spontaneous rather than initiated through an act of will it could very well appear <I>transcendent</I>. That, however, would just be an appearance. It is just as marvellous all the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-92145884567139218382008-07-25T00:57:00.000+10:002008-07-25T00:57:00.000+10:00Apashiol, you're running a pretty difficult argume...Apashiol, you're running a pretty difficult argument.<BR/><BR/>You're trying to fit in three contradictory things. The first is the Darwinian one, in which we are as we are due to random mutations, which confer an evolutionary advantage and so are selected for. <BR/><BR/>This is the deterministic, materialistic strand of your thought.<BR/><BR/>Then you add on to this a liberal, humanistic, voluntaristic strand of thought which says that humans can construct for themselves what they are according to reason or will or desire. It's not easy to fit this view with the Darwinian deterministic one in which we are the product not of voluntaristic reason but of a blind materialistic process.<BR/><BR/>Then you add on the idea that what we take to be goods are just as significant in modernistic as in traditional terms, even though you have previously stated that they are taken to be goods either as a result of random mutation and genetic selection, or else as a construct of our own will.<BR/><BR/>Now I suppose it's possible to think of some ingenious way of fitting all this together, but it will struggle to be persuasive.<BR/><BR/>Apashiol, a strict materialism is pretty difficult to live by. Not even Dawkins manages to do it.<BR/><BR/>According to a strict materialism the music of Bach doesn't mean very much. He wasn't moved by anything mysterious as you imply. He didn't even have free will. He was just matter in motion like anything else, and everything he did could, in theory, have been predicted. His music could not possibly have inspired people to a sense of anything transcendent, as there cannot be in a strict materialism a transcendent. In fact, you have to wonder why in Darwinian terms music even exists, as it doesn't appear to confer a reproductive advantage.<BR/><BR/>What I'm briefly trying to suggest to you is that the materialism you take to be scientific doesn't fit our ordinary experience and cannot easily explain it. So I'm not sure why you take it to be so self-evidently true.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-11894366251525992442008-07-25T00:26:00.000+10:002008-07-25T00:26:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-Now you are just funny.You are so entren...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>Now you are just funny.<BR/><BR/>You are so entrenched in your beliefs that even when I explicitly state something as in;<BR/><BR/>"So you see. I do believe that marriage can be a <B>good thing</B> for those who believe in it.<BR/><B>Both for the individuals and for society</B>."<BR/><BR/>You respond with;<BR/><BR/>"....nor do you proclaim anything inherently good about the institution of marriage."<BR/><BR/><BR/>"But what becomes obvious is not that gay "marriage" is good,.."<BR/><BR/>And;<BR/><BR/>"The goodness of gay "marriage" is merely in the exercise of your ideological principles."<BR/><BR/>Such obtuseness is kind of impressive in it's own way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39401991437399715182008-07-24T23:59:00.000+10:002008-07-24T23:59:00.000+10:00Mark-I can believe that all life is the result of ...Mark-<BR/><BR/>I can believe that all life is the result of evolution without that affecting how deeply I feel about most of those same things that will be important to you.<BR/>I don't believe I was created by a god, yet my love for my family is so strong as to sometimes almost overwhelm me. To the point where I know that if called upon to, I would give my life to protect them.<BR/>I have a very strong sense of honour and fair-play.<BR/>I will always be there for my friends. They trust me and I always try to act so as to be worthy of that trust.<BR/><BR/>Because I can understand how empathy and compassion could have evolved, it doesn't in any way diminish my subjective experience of those emotions.<BR/><BR/>For me, all the religions that have ever existed were 'Just So' stories. Human beings have always felt love and lust, anger and fear, as powerfully as we do. In trying to understand why we were the way we found ourselves, we created narratives of beings like us, only much more powerful who made us this way.<BR/><BR/>There is a creative power within humans that is awesome. The whole of human history is testament to that. We just projected that creativity outside ourselves. The Greeks might have credited Pallas-Athena with the creation of Justice, Arts and Literature. But it was us all along.<BR/><BR/>Bach, Beethoven, Leonardo and Michaelangelo. Every individual artist and inventor through time that has enriched the world. If you had asked them they might have said they were inspired or moved to create by something outside themselves. Artists describe it as something that happens to them or through them.<BR/><BR/>I see all cultures as creations of mankind. It's just that the process of creation is open-ended. <BR/><BR/>When you say there is no way that you can build a successful heterosexual culture on beliefs such as mine, respectfully, I say you are wrong.<BR/><BR/>I'll give you an analogy. When teaching your kids to first cycle their bicycles has it happened that you are pushing them along and they say "Don't let me go!"<BR/>So you wait and then when you see they are in control enough, you let them off by themselves.<BR/><BR/>But you don't tell them.<BR/><BR/>You let them continue to believe you are holding them. That belief helps them stay steady.<BR/>Then they look around and realise that they are moving under their own power. There is a moment of fear, but mixed in there is also an elation. That sudden realisation that they are riding by themselves.<BR/>They might lose it or wobble a bit but they have passed a threshold. Once they know what they are capable of they're away.<BR/><BR/>That is how I see belief in god. <BR/><BR/>That belief in a god gave a sense of security to mankind. Realising it's been us all along doesn't guarantee disaster.<BR/><BR/>So, just as there are plenty of dead-beat dads and flakes who will believe in some form of god without it impacting their behaviour for the better, not believing that things were ordained to be as they are won't affect fathers and husbands who are motivated by love and duty.<BR/><BR/>To say that character and identity are constructed doesn't imply something superficial. It's more like the manner in which your skeleton gets constructed. Once it has been laid down it's that way for life.<BR/>The same goes for the human race. It has taken hundreds of thousands of years to make us who we are. Exchanging a 'Just So' story for one based in scientific understanding isn't necessarily going to change all that.<BR/><BR/>That is my personal take on things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-26613028557362505452008-07-24T21:16:00.000+10:002008-07-24T21:16:00.000+10:00apashiol,You have no business claiming there is no...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>You have no business claiming there is no God. The best you can say is that you have no relationship with God because your god is autonomous. Hence, "autonomy" as <I>highest good.</I> And as the original article made clear, one who practices "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I> is relationship-FREE and has extreme difficulty in finding meaning in the world. Such a person is liable to embrace radical ideologies.<BR/><BR/>So what we have learned from you is that you see nothing inherently <I>good</I> in homosexuality nor do you proclaim anything inherently <I>good</I> about the institution of marriage. Yet, you advocate for gay "marriage" which you imply is a <I>good</I> thing. But what becomes obvious is not that gay "marriage" is <I>good</I>, but rather, your adherence to an ideology that requires you to support gay "marriage" is <I>good</I>. The goodness of gay "marriage" is merely in the exercise of your ideological principles.<BR/><BR/>This puts ALL traditions in danger of radical manipulation via the first principle of "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I>. It represents nothing more than a will to power.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39691996626436204862008-07-24T19:55:00.000+10:002008-07-24T19:55:00.000+10:00Apashiol, your comment of 10:50 tends to prove Tho...Apashiol, your comment of 10:50 tends to prove Thordaddy's point.<BR/><BR/>You argue that there is no naturally existing life purpose or goal; that humans create their own meaning; that society is to be understood in terms of men exercising privilege and power over women; that gender is an incidental attribute; and that it makes no sense to talk about the 'nature' of women.<BR/><BR/>There is no way that you can build a successful heterosexual culture on such beliefs. <BR/><BR/>Why would men and women stick together in marriage if they really believed such assertions to be true?<BR/><BR/>In a heterosexual culture, men and women believe that marriage and family are, in an objective sense, core goods.<BR/><BR/>They are not goods simply because I happen to construct them as so at an individual level.<BR/><BR/>In a heterosexual culture, men believe that the role they play as fathers and husbands is a necessary one motivated by love and a natural drive to fulfil a masculine office, and not by power and privilege.<BR/><BR/>In a heterosexual culture, men and women are drawn to the higher gender attributes of the opposite sex and consider these attributes to be inseparable from individual identity.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-5068358899617009692008-07-24T13:06:00.000+10:002008-07-24T13:06:00.000+10:00On the subject of marriage, I omitted to give my r...On the subject of marriage, I omitted to give my reasons why it should be open to homosexuals.<BR/><BR/>Marriage evolved as a way for men to be sure that the children their wives bore were their own.<BR/>In the absence of paternity tests, this was done by insisting the women remained faithful.<BR/>In our society which didn't allow polygamy, the same was expected of the man.<BR/>Presumably, this was to ensure that his resources supported his family and weren't spread too thinly.<BR/><BR/>The fact that there have been men in the past who had concubines, whose children they supported also, could be argument for a <I>de facto </I> polygamy. It doesn't alter the central premise.<BR/><BR/>Marriage has changed over time and also come to be felt as good for individuals and society by encouraging commitment and mutual support.<BR/>As such, even for people who cannot or choose not to have children it is still worthwhile.<BR/><BR/>If it can be a worthwhile enterprise even for child-less couples, there is no reason why it could not similarly be worthwhile for a same-sex couple.<BR/>This, by the fact it can encourage constancy and responsibility towards one's partner.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So I don't think it is just because heterosexuals have the right that homosexuals want it.<BR/>They might want it for the benefits that accrue from entering into it.<BR/><BR/>You might say ; 'why not just live together as if married? Why do you need legal recognition?'<BR/><BR/>Would you question a heterosexual couple who won't have children and say they should just live together in that case?<BR/><BR/>Would you say the same to an elderly couple who wanted to marry?<BR/><BR/>This is on top of the issue of inheritance of property and finances when one person might die, along with cases of long-term partners denied access to loved ones who have been hospitalized because they aren't considered family.<BR/><BR/>So you see. I do believe that marriage can be a <B>good</B> thing for those who believe in it.<BR/>Both for the individuals and for society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21534364865571370982008-07-24T10:50:00.000+10:002008-07-24T10:50:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-While you have employed many logical fal...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>While you have employed many logical fallacies, the mainstay of your approach has been the fallacy 'Argumentum ad Nauseam'. You repeat the same thing over and over again.<BR/><BR/>You make nebulous accusations such as 'You are afraid to look at the NATURE of homosexuality for fear....'<BR/>I don't even know what that means.<BR/><BR/>I will try to be clear on what I actually think.<BR/><BR/>For me the proposition of a 'highest good' has no meaning. Philosophers in the past have used it, as I understand, to mean an ultimate end, a goal or purpose.<BR/>There always seems to be a teleological sense to it.<BR/><BR/>I see absolutely no evidence that we have been created with a purpose or goal.<BR/>Humans and all life are the result of evolution. There is no 'God'. Humans must create their own meaning.<BR/><BR/>Those who believe in a god usually think they know the mind of god. God's purpose for mankind. They then spend their time trying to force everyone else to to serve that purpose. They are just projecting their <I>own</I> disposition unto an imaginary entity in order to give it an authority it wouldn't otherwise possess.<BR/><BR/>I believe in the ideals of secular democracy. I believe in individual liberty and equality. Nobody has a <I>god-given</I> right to coerce or otherwise define what the meaning of life should be for anyone else. That doesn't preclude us coming together freely to create something worthy for the good of us all.<BR/><BR/>Individual liberty and equality are not ends in themselves, but necessary preconditions from which people can endeavour to discover what is good in life and create their own meaning.<BR/><BR/>All people are entitled to the same basic rights. They are not entitled due to belonging to a privileged race, class, gender, sexuality or whatever kind of category can be created to contain them.<BR/><BR/>It makes no more sense to speak of the 'nature' of the homosexual than it does to speak of the 'nature' of the black man or the 'nature' of woman.<BR/><BR/>All human beings should be judged on their character. Not on any incidental attribute.<BR/><BR/>At times I have suspected you were a troll.<BR/><BR/>I now think you believe that you are thinking clearly and making coherent arguments.<BR/><BR/>It is an object lesson in how mistaken some beliefs can be.<BR/><BR/>I wish I could say this has been instructive. <BR/><BR/>I can't.<BR/> <BR/>Trying to unpack your statements and follow your lines of thought has left me dazed and bemused.<BR/><BR/>In the event that this was you intention all along, congratulations.<BR/><BR/>You have succeeded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33406453784789488502008-07-24T05:00:00.000+10:002008-07-24T05:00:00.000+10:00apashiol,So your basic argument goes like this:Hom...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>So your basic argument goes like this:<BR/><BR/>Homosexuals should get what normal people get because they are normal and it's fair and equal?<BR/><BR/>And this is proved by homosexuals ACTING like heterosexuals in everyway EXCEPT their homosexuality.<BR/><BR/>But of course this is a myopic view of the issue that goes beyond the individual homosexual trying to prove his/her normalness by doing what MOST heterosexuals find NATURAL.<BR/><BR/>You are afraid to look at the NATURE of homosexuality for fear that such a truthful glimpse will change your view and instead you remain willfully transfixed by the stories of the media driven homosexuals WHO appear in everyway EXCEPT their homosexuality to be normal. Are these homosexuals really what they appear or representative of homosexuals as a whole?<BR/><BR/>If gay "marriage" is so important then why say the vows to God are "irrelevant" and only forced acceptance by the state deemed important? You undermine your argument with such ill-considered remarks.<BR/><BR/>When I said that homosexuals can't get "their" union recognised by the state it should have been understood that such recognition is NOT forthcoming to those that don't abide by the institutional rules of marriage. BUT THEY COULD and therefore the LAW APPLIES EQUALLY to all citizens.<BR/><BR/>Your notion that homosexuals are denied the "right" to marriage is only TRUE if you are allowed to change the rules and pretend that such rules are retroactive. <BR/><BR/><B>You think you can redefine marriage to mean what it has never meant before and then arrogantly act as if it has always had that meaning.</B><BR/><BR/>Now that is sophistry.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-3411731529682221602008-07-23T14:00:00.000+10:002008-07-23T14:00:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-The only sensible meaning for rights ar...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>The only sensible meaning for rights are those recognised, guaranteed and protected by a secular democracy.<BR/><BR/>You say;<BR/><BR/>"Let's be specific. Homosexuals AREN'T limited from getting "married" as you state, but rather, limited on <B>getting formal recognition</B> of their union by the state."<BR/><BR/>You explicitly state the lack of formal recognition by the state therefore there is no right.<BR/><BR/>You say;<BR/><BR/>"1. Homosexuals can make vows to God and get married."<BR/><BR/>This is irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>You say;<BR/><BR/>"2. Homosexuals can abide by the marriage laws... ... <B>in order to</B> gain marriage recognition by the state."<BR/><BR/>So, they haven't yet gained that recognition.<BR/><BR/>You also say;<BR/><BR/>"So NO, the ONUS is <B>not on me</B>...."<BR/><BR/>Here you just deny that you must provide any justification.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Sophistry<BR/><BR/><BR/>noun <BR/>Definition:<BR/> <BR/>1. flawed method of argumentation: a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest.<BR/><BR/>You persist in repeating claims instead of providing any substantial arguments.<BR/><BR/>Just because something seems evident to you doesn't mean it is.<BR/><BR/>You wouldn't know an argument if it jumped up and bit you.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, this is tiresome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-697837627854280322008-07-23T05:39:00.000+10:002008-07-23T05:39:00.000+10:00apashiol,You say,I believe that basic freedom is n...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>You say,<BR/><BR/><I>I believe that basic freedom is normative and the onus of justification is on those who would limit it. That is the guiding principle of Western democracy.</I><BR/><BR/>Let's be specific. Homosexuals AREN'T limited from getting "married" as you state, but rather, limited on getting formal recognition of their union by the state.<BR/><BR/>1. Homosexuals can make vows to God and get married.<BR/><BR/>2. Homosexuals can abide by the marriage laws (as is EQUALLY required of all citizens) in order to gain marriage recognition by the state.<BR/><BR/>What you want is something entirely different AND <I>not justified</I> by anything other than the reigning principles of modern liberalism, i.e., autonomy and nondiscrimination as <I>highest goods.</I><BR/><BR/>You must admit that the particular "right" that you assert is denied to homosexuals, namely, marriage, is ONLY denied in one manner and not necessary the most important one. <BR/><BR/>I repeat:<BR/><BR/>Homosexuals can get married (they have that right), but are not sanctioned by the state (the ONLY "right" that you claim is denied). <BR/><BR/>The issue then becomes <I>what is</I> the rationalization for recognizing homosexual "marriage" and WHY THERE ISN'T ONE except for the reigning principles of modern liberalism? It's a circular argument.<BR/><BR/>Then you say,<BR/><BR/><I> If you wish to deny homosexuals the same rights as others the onus is on you to prove why. You must show what the cost to society is. Otherwise you are just scapegoating.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, we've already shown that you exaggerate the "rights" being denied homosexuals and in fact they very much have the right to marry both in the Church and by the state. <BR/><BR/>But you bring up a point about the cost to society. You've already conceded that the advocacy of homosexuality wasn't good or bad which is the same as saying it could have some real costs because it lacks any inherent <I>good</I>. <BR/><BR/>And of course no one argues for the <I>goodness</I> of homosexuality outside of the goodness of the gratification it gives to the individual homosexual. <BR/><BR/>So NO, the ONUS is not on me to show what costs to society the elevation of homosexuality will have because such costs are implied in your rationalizations for such exaltation. You know you are not promoting something that benefits society as a whole and that is why such a justification is NEVER used when explaining the logic of equalizing homosexuality to heterosexuality.<BR/><BR/>Lastly you say,<BR/><BR/><I>I can see no logical reason not to treat homosexuality fairly and equally to heterosexuality.</I><BR/><BR/>The most obvious reason is that the nature of homosexuals and heterosexuals are NOT EQUAL and therefore there is no moral rationale for treating them fairly although this perception CHANGES if one places autonomy and nondiscrimination as their <I>highest goods.</I> But with such principles come the understanding that "progressives" can rationalize ANY behavior no matter how deleterious. The elevation of homosexuality being the prime example.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-51562674202701282762008-07-22T22:28:00.000+10:002008-07-22T22:28:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-I believe that basic freedom is normativ...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>I believe that basic freedom is normative and the onus of justification is on those who would limit it. That is the guiding principle of Western democracy.<BR/><BR/>A criminal's basic freedom is curtailed because he breaks the Law.<BR/><BR/>People who are mentally ill or otherwise of unsound mind are not free to enter into contracts. If judged to be a danger to themselves or others they can also be restrained and lose their freedom.<BR/><BR/>An elderly person who loses their eyesight will have their driving permits revoked.<BR/><BR/>Until a person reaches an age when they are judged capable of responsible action their freedom is circumscribed.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to deny homosexuals the same rights as others the onus is on <B>you </B> to prove why. You must show what the cost to society is. Otherwise you are just scapegoating.<BR/><BR/>I don't say homosexuality is good. I say it's morally neutral. There is no relation between a person's sexual preference and their character or ability to abide by the law.<BR/>Just because someone is heterosexual, that doesn't make him moral either.<BR/><BR/>The last justification used to discriminate against homosexuals was that homosexuality was a mental disorder.<BR/>Then a battery of tests were carried out on heterosexuals and homosexuals and psychiatrists looked at the results to see if they could tell the sexuality of those tested. They couldn't. In fact, the percentage within each group judged mentally sound was the same.<BR/>The conclusion was that there was no objective basis to consider homosexuals mentally disordered.<BR/><BR/>In other words it was prejudice.<BR/>After that, the laws penalizing homosexuals were abrogated. <BR/><BR/>The only way that heterosexuality is better for society would seem to be because it produces children.<BR/>If you want to deny marriage to homosexuals because they don't have children, will you also deny an infertile couple the right to marry?<BR/>In fact, in a world that is arguably reaching the limits of sustainable population, not having children could be seen as a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Marriage in the end is a contract between two people recognised by law. If the law is changed to allow two same-sex couples that right I don't see how that affects heterosexuals. Personally, I don't feel threatened. I don't care in the least what the religious think either way.<BR/><BR/>I can see no logical reason <B>not</B> to treat homosexuality fairly and equally to heterosexuality.<BR/><BR/>The burden of proof rests on <B>you</B>. Just because you make a claim, that in itself doesn't constitute proof. <BR/><BR/>As the saying goes, put up or shut up.<BR/><BR/>Or, you could always drop the pretence of logic and admit yours is a prejudice rooted in emotion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-50784052426480920512008-07-22T20:17:00.000+10:002008-07-22T20:17:00.000+10:00apashiol,Why can't we discriminate based on people...apashiol,<BR/><BR/>Why can't we discriminate based on people's sexuality especially when defining marriage? You keep saying this discrimination is wrong, but don't say why exactly. You just repeat the mantra that we cannot discriminate. We must be equal. We must accede to the wants and desires of others no matter what the societal costs. Homosexuals should get what they want because they want it. This is your logic.<BR/><BR/>You don't say homosexuality is <I>good</I> and therefore we must advocate it. You don't say homosexuality is <I>healthy</I> and therefore we should embrace it.<BR/>You don't even say that marriage is a good thing, but insist that homosexuals must have it.<BR/><BR/>Homosexuals can make vows to God and be "married." Homosexuals can even follow the same laws as the rest of us have to follow in order to marry. But you want to force special laws in order to accomodate those who think forced acceptance is a sign of deep commitment. Again, such a radical demand is a clear sign that "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I> is in play and that naked desire is the logic that dictates.<BR/><BR/>What is the logic behind your advocacy of homosexuality and those that practice it? To just claim it's fair and equal is to say nothing at all. There is no logical reason to treat homosexuality fairly and equally to heterosexuality. There is only the moral requirement to refrain from violence against such sexually-oriented individuals. You are pretending that two different <I>natures</I> can be treated equally and nothing will change in those <I>natures</I>. Yet, you know that this desire to equate homosexuality to heterosexuality has created profound changes in our society and many see that it is not for the better.Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-34198599349807735532008-07-22T13:57:00.000+10:002008-07-22T13:57:00.000+10:00Thordaddy-All of the groups you mention have their...Thordaddy-<BR/><BR/>All of the groups you mention have their basic human rights protected. Then on top of that, there are rights such as the right to vote that are predicated upon the fact you are:<BR/> <BR/>1/ Legally an adult (not a minor)<BR/><BR/>2/ not in prison (felons)<BR/><BR/>3/ Legally resident (I assume this is what you mean talking about immigrants)<BR/><BR/>It is you who are illogical.<BR/><BR/>It is nothing to do with 'elevation of autonomy as highest good.'<BR/>It is about consensual acts between adults and not discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be saying that once homosexual acts are taken to be morally equivalent to heterosexual acts, that will inevitably lead to the dissolution of intimate male/female relationships and finally all relationships.<BR/>That is a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy.<BR/>What evidence is there to show for this, outside of your own imagination?<BR/>It's like saying that homosexuality must be prohibited in order to protect heterosexuality.<BR/>I think you'll find that even with the acceptance of homosexuality, most men will still prefer relationships with women and vice versa.<BR/>Do you fear that this won't be the case with you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-25593865721499450782008-07-21T20:10:00.000+10:002008-07-21T20:10:00.000+10:00ruddy and ash,The heart of this discussion is the ...ruddy and ash,<BR/><BR/>The heart of this discussion is the overt advocacy of the dissolution of the intimate relationship between man and woman. The strategy undertaken for this dissolution is the elevation of the notion of "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I>.<BR/><BR/>This led Paula Hall to state:<BR/><BR/><I>"If you're busy and fulfilled with lots of <B>close friends</B>, then relationships may <B>seem</B> a bit <B>irrelevant</B> ...</I> (my emphasis)<BR/><BR/>This was read as abandoning intimate man/woman relations when in actuality, and taking "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I> to its logical conclusion, it says true "autonomy" means being relationship-FREE. Either close friends are irrelevant or they AREN'T considered relationships, according to Ms. Hall.<BR/><BR/>And so it is no surprise given the NATURE of the homosexual to see such sexually-oriented individuals at the forefront of causes and ideological positions that have as their <B>practical effect</B> both the dissolution of intimate man/woman relations but relationships in general. <BR/><BR/>Why this is not important in the context of the rising political clout of those that self-indentify as homosexuals is interesting. <BR/><BR/>Apashiol,<BR/><BR/>Your logic is weak. It is countered in a number of instances (adults/children, felons/citizens, citizens/immigrants). Your take is that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals because they are the same. Simple as that... The fallacy is obvious. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same as they very much arise from opposite natures. If one were to embrace the essence of heterosexuality and another the essence of homosexuality, it would be the difference between life and death. Your take suggests this means <I>nothing</I>. There is no logic to support this stance. <BR/><BR/>So the question becomes, why are some advocating for the equalization of homosexuality to heterosexuality when such a task inevitably leads to the elevation of "autonomy" as <I>highest good</I> (the ONLY rationale for such an overt power play) and the dissolution of intimate man/woman relations and all relationships in general?Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.com