MedVision ad

Calls for legal same-sex marriage (1 Viewer)

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Schroedinger said:
I was introduced to a theory several weeks ago that outlined that with further research of neurology, we may be able to derive how humans form their moralities purely at a neurological level.

What it basically outlined is that, at the moment our understanding of human cognition is rather lacking and thus any current claim on moral absolutes being completely and utterly intangible to us is, quite possibly, based on the fact that we don't have the technology/level of understanding to achieve them at this point in time.
If you're interested in the interactions between neuroscience and morality you should check out some of the work of Harvard philosopher/psychologist Joshua Greene (you can also find some interesting arguments for relativism in his PhD dissertation that he undertook at Princeton). While neuroscientific data no doubt gives us insight into our moral processes - in fact, this phil of mind/neuroscience cross over is my favourite part of philosophy! - we still have to be realistic about how far it can take us. Moral decision making involves processes as complex as belief formation (e.g. "If I hit Phil I will cause him pain"), representation (e.g. of Phil and his being in pain), logical reasoning (but causing pain is bad, so I should not hit Phil) and decision making in situations of dilemma (but he pissed me off and I want to hit him!). Good cognitive models are certainly feasible, but we are a long way away from being anywhere close to a reduction to the level of neurons and neural networks.

I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to the "future enlightenment might show absolutism to be reasonable" 'argument'. Sure, this could be the case , but this doesn't mean much unless it can be shown that we have good reason to think that it is the case. Without this it is just pure speculation, like 'maybe we aren't advanced enough to realise that Nirvana actually does exist'. This kind of argument is more pertinent for something like consciousness for which we do have good arguments to the tune of 'future developments in neuroscience may well show conscious experience to reduce to physical brains states' (where this suggestion is aimed at those who derive a dualist separation between mental and the physical on the basis of some kind of Cartesian intuition).
 

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
*TRUE* said:
KFunk what do you mean by "the ability to look at such valuations in terms of human preferences (my italics) which we can make sense of independant of absolutist, metaphysical baggage" ?
Think of this as looking at moral claims like 'murder is bad' and 'generosity is good' in a manner similar to the way in which you would look at aesthetic claims like 'wild strawberries are the best fruit' or 'postmodern art is rubbish'.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
PwarYuex said:
Point out where I said 'legal terminology'? Lookup legalese on wikipedia. I'm sure it outlines more to it than its lexical features. :rolleyes:
I would contend that in order for it to constitute 'legalese', it would have to contain a greater element of legal jargon that distinguishes it from regular, formal writing.

Verbosity, prolixity and waffle are more apt descriptions in my humble opinion. than 'wannabe legalese'.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
incentivation said:
I would contend that in order for it to constitute 'legalese', it would have to contain a greater element of legal jargon that distinguishes it from regular, formal writing.
Indeed I agree, that's why I called it 'wannabe legalese', not 'legalese'. :)

Verbosity, prolixity and waffle are more apt descriptions in my humble opinion. than 'wannabe legalese'.
Nah, the writing style is definitely that of a waffler trying to be a lawyer, sorry. And I'm not sure why you put two synonyms back to back. :S

And lol at captain ghey.
 

kokodamonkey

Active Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
3,453
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
emytaylor164 said:
To the homosexual marriage thing i am against it i think that it is a union between a MAN AND A WOMEN not a man and a man and women and a women i think that it should be illegal to have homosexual marriages
here here
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
kokodamonkey said:
here here
How could you here here to something so poorly written, illogical, and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever? :S
 

scarybunny

Rocket Queen
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
3,820
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
aMUSEd1977 said:
Wow, so you agree with the definition of marriage that was written 142 years ago, by some British judge? A definition that despite significant social change has remained unchanged?

Right.

Makes sense.

*Hyde v Hyde Woodmansee is the case in question
Exactly. I don't see why people are so adamant for the law (which is all marriage is, a legal term) not to change. It always changes.
 

kokodamonkey

Active Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
3,453
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
aMUSEd1977 said:
Wow, so you agree with the definition of marriage that was written 142 years ago, by some British judge? A definition that despite significant social change has remained unchanged?

Right.

Makes sense.

*Hyde v Hyde Woodmansee is the case in question
Also agree With John Howard who updated the marriage act in 2004 further emphasising that it is a voluntary union between a man and a woman.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
PwarYuex said:
Indeed I agree, that's why I called it 'wannabe legalese', not 'legalese'. :)



Nah, the writing style is definitely that of a waffler trying to be a lawyer, sorry. And I'm not sure why you put two synonyms back to back. :S

And lol at captain ghey.
Reminds me of the fire we used to throw during the new hampshire primaries
 

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,646
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
romancandle said:
It really is quite simple.

Marriage is a religious union... defined by Islam, christianity, Judaism and countless others as a joint agreement between male and female before the sight of god.


You can not screw that over with having gays join in agreement. Marriage is a religious agreement and like it or not 90% of religions disagree with gay marriage.

So what can gays and lesbos do? have a civil union etc! ahuh I hear or you silly buggers (scuse the pun..) say! Civil union is different ot marriage (duh.. ) and as a result those in civil unions dont get the benifits of marriage under the law!

Simply solved, bring law in lines so that it is equal.. And no, that wont make marriage and civil union the same. Marriage is a religious doctrine, civil union is not. There is yuour difference.

And we all live happily ever after...
i would agree with this if breeders also had to get civil unions, and marriages were restricted to being simply religious institutions with no legal force

edit: infact that is my preferred model
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Iron said:
Reminds me of the fire we used to throw during the new hampshire primaries
hahah.

townie said:
i would agree with this if breeders also had to get civil unions, and marriages were restricted to being simply religious institutions with no legal force

edit: infact that is my preferred model
Lol at breeders. <3 Alex.

But that being said, I've never understood this whole 'marriage vs civil union' thing. How does the law refer to two people who have got a civil union vs two married people? Like, 'Bob and James are civil unioned'? I seriously don't understand it at all.

I agree with your point, though. Although I don't see why civil unions can't be administered by a person affiliated with an institution. Some people have claimed that priests, reverends, rabbis, etc, shouldn't be able to administer civil unions, but I think this would just be impractical. If you want to have a religious ceremony which binds you legally, I think you should be able to.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
PwarYuex said:
Some people have claimed that priests, reverends, rabbis, etc, shouldn't be able to administer civil unions, but I think this would just be impractical. If you want to have a religious ceremony which binds you legally, I think you should be able to.
Then what's the point of watering it down to civil representatives of working families? (unions is too strong)
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
kokodamonkey said:
Also agree With John Howard who updated the marriage act in 2004 further emphasising that it is a voluntary union between a man and a woman.
Why?

Is this from a religious point of view - and if so, why should religion have a part to play in a CIVIL law?

I don't get it. Why do people like you care SO much about the "wrongness" of it?
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Iron said:
Then what's the point of watering it down to civil representatives of working families? (unions is too strong)
Sorry what?

My point is that some people claim that legal marriages should not be able to be performed by anyone acting in a religious role. (Or, I suppose, more specifically: That marriages should only be performed in a secular manner.)

I disagree with this. I think that if you want a religious figure to perform your legal marriage, that should be allowed. Sorry if I was unclear before.

I'm not saying that anything should be watered down, I just think that the current system where religious (rabbis, priests, reverends, etc) and non-religious ('marriage celebrants') figures can both perform legal marriages is fine. I assume that most queer marriages would be performed by MCs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
4,317
Location
It's what I want that's easy. It's getting it that
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
townie said:
i would agree with this if breeders also had to get civil unions, and marriages were restricted to being simply religious institutions with no legal force

edit: infact that is my preferred model
what if you made a marriage both a religious and civil union? that way any couple would be recognised under a civil union but only those who adhere to their religious criteria would be termed married.

if the 'difference' simply becomes a matter of terminology i dont think it would be such a massive issue.

EDIT: or maybe define a 'civil union' as a 'marriage' and those recognised under religious criteria as '[insert some term that means the same as marriage]'
 
Last edited:

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Well all I know is that if we dont fight the sodhamites over there, we're gonna have to fight them over here
 

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,646
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
pwar, i wouldnt have a problem with religious figures performing the legal side of things, but i think all the legal benefits that come with marriage at present, should instead be merged into a thing called a civil union, the marriage part merley being a descriptive term for a civil union performed by the church.

under this reasoning, divorced people also couldnt get "married" but i don't see why this should be a problem to those opposite as they disagree with gay marriage as it is against the sanctity of marriage, well, so is divorce.

to sum up in one line/sentence, make marriage between a man and woman for life, but make it JUST THAT, nothing legal about it, just religious, and civil unions can form the legal side of things.
 

maccasjunkie

Member
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
43
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
I dont see the problem... If people want to recite vows dont they have a right to?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top