Gay Marriage

[Knobby22]

Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.

If you are saying that morality depends to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.

It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority. The basis of how we assess "rights" and "good" are obviously movable and will vary from individual to individual, which is why we have to discuss the issue as a group and not take the words of a small number of people as gospel.

Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election.

Well said.

 

[Value Collector]

That's where you are wrong.

What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.

Here is the sticking point and the reason you keep missing my point.

You are talking about what people think is moral, you are talking about moral systems, this is opinion which can be wrong. The fact that two people have differing moral systems doesn't change the facts of reality.

What I am talking about is the underlying facts of reality in any given situation which are not based on opinion.

The best moral option is the one the provides an outcome where the wellbeing of all thinking beings affected is maximised.

For example, person A has a moral belief that it's ok to cook crabs alive, because they think crabs don't feel pain, person B has a moral belief that you should make an effort to render the crab insensible before cooking because they do feel pain.

One of them is wrong, if person B is correct, then person A's actions are immorral, regardless of person A's own moral belief system, and regardless of how good the rest of their character is, their moral belief system is based on incorrect information, which leads them to commit an immoral act, their opinion doesn't make their action moral.

 

[Value Collector]

Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.

.

No we aren't, but we should always strive to make the best decisions we can, based on the information we have.

If you are saying that morality depends to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.

Morality isn't affected by knowledge, in my example above person A didn't have the knowledge that crabs felt pain, so that lack of knowledge affected what he believed about morality but it doesn't change what is moral, if person B is correct about crabs, person A's actions were immoral regards of his person opinion.

It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority

Yes, if it can be shown that allowing the minority to take a certain action causes harm to the majority, But that's why I have been asking people to show me how allowing a gay couple to marry cause harm to anyone, so far no one has been able to show harm.

Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election

But, please answer this, what a plebiscite have been the best method to end slavery in the southern states of the US, what actions you take if the plebiscite agreed to keep slavery?

 

[SirRumpole]

But, please answer this, what a plebiscite have been the best method to end slavery in the southern states of the US, what actions you take if the plebiscite agreed to keep slavery?

No, please don't go on about slavery, we both agree that morality changes over time, that was then and this is now, there is no comparison.

Yes, if it can be shown that allowing the minority to take a certain action causes harm to the majority, But that's why I have been asking people to show me how allowing a gay couple to marry cause harm to anyone, so far no one has been able to show harm.

I gave you a reason regarding gay parenting which you chose to dismiss. I don't agree with your reasons for dismissing my claim. In another thread I posted a survey that shows that Norway is divided over gay parenting even though they have gay marriage, therefore this proposal could cause divisions in society.

You can dismiss that if you like, but I feel that you are so "rusted on" to your cause that you will therefore not listen to any arguments to the contrary. The wider public may agree with you or me, we will see.

 

[Value Collector]

No, please don't go on about slavery, we both agree that morality changes over time, that was then and this is now, there is no comparison.



.

OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.

I gave you a reason regarding gay parenting which you chose to dismiss

yes because its a slippery slope argument.

. I don't agree with your reasons for dismissing my claim. In another thread I posted a survey that shows that Norway is divided over gay parenting even though they have gay marriage, therefore this proposal could cause divisions in society.

easy, deal with them as the two separate topics they are.

You can dismiss that if you like, but I feel that you are so "rusted on" to your cause that you will therefore not listen to any arguments to the contrary. The wider public may agree with you or me, we will see

Provide evidence for your claim and I will look at it. but it has to be real evidence, not anecdotal stories or cherry picked examples.

 

[Value Collector]

Slavery is still seen as moral by some.

So does that mean it is moral?

According to Rumpole their opinion makes it moral for them

 

[SirRumpole]

OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.

Sigh. We aren't living in Alabama in the 1800's what happened then is irrelevant to today.

SOMEBODY has to decide about Gay Marriage in LAW.

Whether or not the result conforms to your idea of what is "truly moral" is irrelevant, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?

 

[Value Collector]

, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?

I would rather a decision be made that's been well thought out, reasoned, and argued based on the facts of the situation, by a group of people who understand morality and won't be influenced by religious ideas or fall into the traps of logical fallacies.

If it's not possible of the sitting government to do this, then put it to a plebiscite, and kick out all sitting members of parliament at the same time, because if they can not make a simple decision such as that without calling for a plebiscite how can we trust them on the other big decisions.

 

[SirRumpole]

OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.

To use your own logic.

A system is moral if the well being of the most number of thinking beings is maximised, correct ?

So if a small number of slaves enhance the well being of a large number of people, that would be a moral system ?

 

[luutzu]

Sigh. We aren't living in Alabama in the 1800's what happened then is irrelevant to today.

SOMEBODY has to decide about Gay Marriage in LAW.

Whether or not the result conforms to your idea of what is "truly moral" is irrelevant, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?

But it's not irrelevant. We can't simply let the majority oppresses the minority and call it moral because the majority said so.

 

[Value Collector]

To use your own logic.

A system is moral if the well being of the most number of thinking beings is maximised, correct ?

So if a small number of slaves enhance the well being of a large number of people, that would be a moral system ?

It's never as simple as greatest good for the greatest number, any attempt to put slavery into that camp would give a false result, pretty much the only reason to restrict a persons freedom is to prevent real harm to others, you can't just take some ones freedom for profit.

In reality it would be one slave owner benefiting from cheap labour at the expense of many slaves, its the opposite of greatest good for the greatest number.

The rest of society would benefit just as much if the products provided by slave labour were provided by an employee earning a market rate for their labour. sure the plantation owner might not be able to afford a manor if he had to pay wages, but his workers would benefit greatly by being free, and society benefits from them being free also.

 

[Knobby22]

But it's not irrelevant. We can't simply let the majority oppresses the minority and call it moral because the majority said so.

Eric Abetz would agree with you 100%.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's never as simple as greatest good for the greatest number, any attempt to put slavery into that camp would give a false result, pretty much the only reason to restrict a persons freedom is to prevent real harm to others, you can't just take some ones freedom for profit.

I think that answer demonstrates the folly of trying to make hard and fast rules that suit every purpose at every time.

There are too many ifs and buts. Sure, some rules are fine but there are usually extenuating circumstances that intervene.

How would you balance the "rights" of a mother wanting an abortion with the "rights" of the child to survive in terms of restricting one person's freedom in order to prevent harm to others ?

 

[luutzu]

Eric Abetz would agree with you 100%.

Haven't been following Abetz so that fall flat on me. But he does sounds like a very wise man

 

[Value Collector]

I think that answer demonstrates the folly of trying to make hard and fast rules that suit every purpose at every time.

There are too many ifs and buts. Sure, some rules are fine but there are usually extenuating circumstances that intervene.

How would you balance the "rights" of a mother wanting an abortion with the "rights" of the child to survive in terms of restricting one person's freedom in order to prevent harm to others ?

I never said anything about "hard and fast rules", in fact I actually said I didn't believe in moral absolutes.

I said right at the start that you can't have absolute rules saying something like killing another human is immoral because in certain situations killing a person might be the most moral option.

What I did say, is that as we go though time we are learning more and more about morality, and developing a set of principles and filters from which to judge our actions, and we should always base our decisions on being as close as possible to the most moral actions, I made no pronouncements of hard and fast rules, that's the religious folk who do that.

In regards to abortion, we can look use science to help tell us when an embryo becomes a person, obviously a persons rights out weigh the rights of a fertilised egg. But again this is something that needs to be judged based on facts, not emotion, not bible verses, not opinion.

 

[luutzu]

Come on SirRumpole, you can't really use morality as the basis of your argument when your argument is to discriminate against an entire section of the community.

I mean you can try and make a case that it's bad for the children or bad for society or it goes against your belief and value system... and I am sure you're morally a decent person, but this stance is not moral, can't be argued on such ground.

So yea, some gays are bad people; some gay parents will harm children... but not all gays are bad, not all gay parents are harmful... and if they are harmful or bad, their homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Just as some straight or some White or coloured folks are bad and make bad parents... Unless you can prove otherwise, no leg to stand on.

 

[SirRumpole]

Come on SirRumpole, you can't really use morality as the basis of your argument when your argument is to discriminate against an entire section of the community.

Sometimes discrimination against some is necessary for the good of the rest. Maybe that doesn't apply to gay marriage all I'm saying is that it should be for the whole of society to decide based on facts presented.

I'm tired of this debate monopolising what should be more important issues for everyone. Employment, education etc and I want a result one way or the other so we can move on.

I mean you can try and make a case that it's bad for the children or bad for society or it goes against your belief and value system... and I am sure you're morally a decent person, but this stance is not moral, can't be argued on such ground.

So yea, some gays are bad people; some gay parents will harm children... but not all gays are bad, not all gay parents are harmful... and if they are harmful or bad, their homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Just as some straight or some White or coloured folks are bad and make bad parents... Unless you can prove otherwise, no leg to stand on.

Belief system has nothing to do with it when it comes to the rights of children to a mother and father. Is that outweighed by the "rights" of gay people to have children by artificial means when two gay people cannot naturally have children ? You have to take away one person's rights to give it to someone else. That is not moral in my view.

 

[Tink]

Good on you, Rumpole, for standing your ground and being a voice for children.
I agree with you.

Natural Law includes them all, and that is what Marriage is and its meaning.
As I have said, it should not be REDEFINED to exclude them, making the natural family - hate speech.
It is a LIE, and lying to the children -- it is UNJUST, in my view.

A mother and father are important in a child's life, and vice versa, and that is what the Government should be promoting.
That is what Marriage is, that is the LAW.

Our Laws are based on our Christian heritage.
Structured and orderly, as I stated in another post, so is society and our laws.

Marriage stays as is.

 

[Tisme]

I think we all need a refresher on how things are supposed to be done :- rewatch The Blue Lagoon and marvel how nature wins out over notion.

I blame Kinsey for correlating his own perversions and pleasures as fact instead of the fiction that was subsequently accepted as a study worthy of relaxing the moral codes bound up in the US law. As usual if it's good enough for the USA (who are 20 years ahead of us we are told) it's good enough for Oz.... although I do remember a time in the 70's when we were the epicentre of movie and telly nudity and sex scenes .....yeah for that

 

[Knobby22]

It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.

Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
And if I speak out against it I will be branded homophobic or worse.

And we really don't know the long term effect on the children, especially with male only parents which I think is more of a concern than female parents for a variety of reasons.

It's one thing to allow people to live their lives as they wish, it is another thing altogether to subsidise it.