Should same-sex marriage be legal?

[rubliw]

Claims are not the same as facts.

That men eat is a fact. What men like to eat is a claim.

Saying that what men like to eat some how undergoes a metamorphosis into what they "ought" to eat and that what they like to eat "ought" to be provided to them or by virtue of their preference no other man "ought not" impede their preferred consumptions is where your pontificating falls flat.

OK, so people like to be fulfilled and satisfied. That is NOT the same as saying whatever makes a man feels fulfilled and satisfied is to be condoned and sanction by any other person who similarly likes to be fulfilled and satisfied. "He likes it, I must endorse it" is not a moral statement.

It's an idiotic statement.

If you are such an advocate for satisfaction and fulfillment then why do you argue in favor of imposing a policy preference on majority of the population that will do nothing to improve their lives, its absence is no detriment to them, would be passed against their consent and--if all other liberal theories on societal reconstruction are any indicator--will probably act to further decay their social fabric. Supposedly self-governance is satisfying and fulfilling as well but your advocacy on *that* principle only goes so far.

What does "ought" even mean?  If it does not mean something along the lines of "has a rational reason, above all else, to act", I simply don't know what meaning the word can have. 

Part and parcel of the nature of values, is that they give us rational reasons to act in certain ways.  Hence, from values, comes "ought".  Just like you ought to use a hammer, if you want to drive a nail, you ought to treat your neighbors well, if you value well-being, etc.

If "ought" means something else to you, I don't know what it could possibly be - and if it is  in no way connected to human value or desire, I don't know why it should be something any moral theory is required to account for.   

Gotta go now, will get to the rest later.

[dandi]

What does "ought" even mean?  If it does not mean something along the lines of "has a rational reason, above all else, to act", I simply don't know what meaning the word can have. 

ought

–auxiliary verb
1.  (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.

2.  (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. you ought to be ashamed.

3.  (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers.

4.  (used to express probability or natural consequence): That ought to be our train now.

–noun
5.  duty or obligation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ought

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I only use "ought" because you did. Don't throw out a term then complain someone uses it to discuss the issue in your context. That makes you either dubious or too stupid to recognize your own words.

Again you retreat to the utilitarian argument. But anyone can easily enough say if you "value" offspring you "ought" to use sexual organs in the manner to which they are best suited to the exclusion of all other anatomical features.

If man values happines and fulfillment then he "ought" to be religious as study after study demonstrates the utility of religion in securing and enhancing personal happiness.

But I make no claims about the "ought" of anything. There is no "Man ought to live" commandment because man was never meant to be alive. His existence, while empirical fact, is only chemical mechanisms born of happenstance of physicality existing "just-so." The individual life is predicated upon one particular sperm outpacing millions of other on the one night mama didn't swallow.

Take a look at those paintings of the evolution of man and tell me which one of the furry little bastards gained the capacity and obligations of "ought".

Just your species?

Someone else further down the chain who--golly!--is already extinct?

"ought"?

heh

Man may value being alive  but that is really nothing more than a psycho-physiological reflex built up over millions of years of evolution. Any species lacking a biological reflex to survive probably hasn't, ipso facto. Man may find certain tools and practices have greater utility in maintaining his life and he'll try to scarf-down as many double-dip sundaes and squeeze off one more orgasm to make his life seem a little less futile and tedious but at the end of the day...

...so what?

If man was never meant to be alive he sure as shit wasn't meant to be happy and the universe's unrelenting assault on the life it mindlessly,  haphazardly spawned proves that.

I reject the unicorn of ought.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ought

wilbur wants to toss out words then when people start using them he wants to quibble about what they mean.

His tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.

[Eupher]

....snip...

His [wilbur's] tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.

Apart from the ridiculous nature of wilbur and his "arguments", I'd suggest that wilbur's tactics qualify for Trolldom.

[MP_Sarge]

First ponies, now unicorns?

I ****ING LOVE THIS BOARD!

[Eupher]

First ponies, now unicorns?

I ****ING LOVE THIS BOARD!

didja get the "skittle-shitting" part?

[dandi]

wilbur wants to toss out words then when people start using them he wants to quibble about what they mean.

His tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.

Oh, I know.  I had to remind the little Nazi bitch-boy several times in the abortion thread just how much he didn't own the language.

[vesta111]

I only use "ought" because you did. Don't throw out a term then complain someone uses it to discuss the issue in your context. That makes you either dubious or too stupid to recognize your own words.

Again you retreat to the utilitarian argument. But anyone can easily enough say if you "value" offspring you "ought" to use sexual organs in the manner to which they are best suited to the exclusion of all other anatomical features.

If man values happines and fulfillment then he "ought" to be religious as study after study demonstrates the utility of religion in securing and enhancing personal happiness.

But I make no claims about the "ought" of anything. There is no "Man ought to live" commandment because man was never meant to be alive. His existence, while empirical fact, is only chemical mechanisms born of happenstance of physicality existing "just-so." The individual life is predicated upon one particular sperm outpacing millions of other on the one night mama didn't swallow.

Take a look at those paintings of the evolution of man and tell me which one of the furry little bastards gained the capacity and obligations of "ought".

Just your species?

Someone else further down the chain who--golly!--is already extinct?

"ought"?

heh

Man may value being alive  but that is really nothing more than a psycho-physiological reflex built up over millions of years of evolution. Any species lacking a biological reflex to survive probably hasn't, ipso facto. Man may find certain tools and practices have greater utility in maintaining his life and he'll try to scarf-down as many double-dip sundaes and squeeze off one more orgasm to make his life seem a little less futile and tedious but at the end of the day...

...so what?

If man was never meant to be alive he sure as shit wasn't meant to be happy and the universe's unrelenting assault on the life it mindlessly,  haphazardly spawned proves that.

I reject the unicorn of ought.


wilbur wants to toss out words then when people start using them he wants to quibble about what they mean.

His tactic isn't so much about proving his point but to distract the dialogue from allowing you to prove your point.

Circumstances decide the OUGHT factor.   Depends on where you were born and or the mental stability of those that go against the flow.

Jerrery Dommer was inprisoned for eating human flesh in our society, in parts of the world this is perfectabley normal.----The Soccer players that had a plane crash 20 years ago and ate the deceased and survived on their bodys caused such an uproar in South America that the Pope had to intervien and declare that in life threatening conditions this was exceptable, and to have starved to death with refusing to eat avaible food to survive could be considered sucicide.

In Asia where people sell their children to the sex trade, this is exceptable, in England this is a no-no.

In the Middle East civilized behavior is,  full of very strange contridictions.  On one hand becoming a homosexual is a death sentince, but the youth is encouraged to get their sex release from each other as long as there is no overt homosexul intentions.???  Then to explain the dancing boys--This is a very odd culture, at times the OUGHT seems to me that men are sinning if they love or care for one woman and their daughters.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Circumstances decide the OUGHT factor...

Situational morality is just as vaporous as the conventional kind. What situational morality usually lacks is an ungirding *why* one thing is preferrable over another and *what* are the guidelines for determining such things.



BTW (not just VestalVirgin1) - there's no need to quote an entire post to show which one you are referring to; please feel free to truncate as I have demonstrated.

[rubliw]

Bunny,

Oh  good  grief.   Anybody  arguing  in good  faith  is  interested  in clarifying definitions and understanding the meanings of the words his conversant is using.   So I attempted to clarify,  since it seems like you're using some  of these words differently that I  am.  In case you hadnt realized,  the term "moral" (and subsequently  the term "ought") are terms whose definitions are highly controversial in philosophy, so one needs to be *really* specific.  That's why I provided a definition of morality  - and further down  the line I provided  a definition for "ought".  So far  you havent even given me any inkling  as to what you think morality should  even be defined as.  How am  I supposed to give any credence to your claims that it cannot exist?

And... anyone  arguing in  *really* good faith,  doesnt expect  to put everything perfectly the first time,  and even expects to modify their arguments as time  goes on, in light of what  their opponents say.  So in   retrospect,  I   could  be   a   little  more   clear  about   my definitions... so lets settle on this, right now:

Moral duy: "A rational reason  (ie imperitive) to act, that supercedes all other reasons to act".

Ought: "To possess a moral duty" So "ought" really expands too, "to possess a  rational reason to act, that supercedes all other  reasons to act".  

Now I don't  know about you,  but I think those  *definately* exist  (unlike  unicorns).  And really, what else are we supposed to ask for from a moral theory? It doesnt matter, whether we "matter" to the cosmos - I don't know why you're so preoccupied with that red herring.  Things matter to minds - and if there is *something* that  matters to all minds - universally - then  it matters  objectively to  all  beings with  minds. That's  how morality  becomes objective  - that's  the  *only* way  it can  become objective.

There is simply no  reason anyone ought to do anything, if on some level they don't value actually value doing that thing.  There would be no reason to act, and hence, no reason they "ought" to act.

It makes no difference whether the cosmos "meant for us to be happy". It makes no difference whether a God wants us to be happy - it matters what *we value*.  Values are what provide *rational reasons* to act. And rational reasons to act are the foundations of a moral system. And if we all share the same - or a similiar - core value, which is valued above all else - then we have all share the same underlying rational reasons for action, that supercede all others.  We have a universal morality.

Now maybe, for some reason or another, you don't want to call  that morality, but for  the life of me, I can't possibly imagine what "morality" actually means to you, if not that?  Maybe this time  you'll finally provide a definition of it, and we can see if it makes sense?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That you want [fill in the blank] legalized finds itself a subjective preference. It holds no sway over me or anyone else.

I've already stated religion improves man's happiness yet you would be the last person to claim a person "ought" to be religious. You will instead cop to "if they choose" because supposedly man "ought" to be allowed to make up his own mind about his religious beliefs. So while man "ought" to be happy, man "ought" to be able to choose to be unhappy. But even those who do choose religion, though they be happy, have been devalued in your mind and they "ought not" disagree.

Says who?

You, apparently.

And you seem quite willing to use the force of the government they chartered to compel them against their happiness.

Because that is what you "ought" to do.

Says who?

You, apparently.

[rubliw]

 
That you want  [fill in  the blank]  legalized finds itself a  subjective preference.  It holds no  sway over me  or anyone else.

I've already stated religion improves man's happiness yet you would be the last  person to claim a  person "ought" to be  religious. You will instead cop to  "if they choose" because supposedly  man "ought" to be allowed to make up his own  mind about his religious beliefs. So while man  "ought" to  be happy,  man "ought"  to be  able to  choose  to be unhappy. But even those who  do choose religion, though they be happy, have been devalued in your mind and they "ought not" disagree.

Says who?

You, apparently.

Well, you do raise an interesting point, that religion does seem to confer some marginal benefits to believers... resistence to depression, a better ability to heal from disease and sickness.  

But there have been studies that have shown that secular groups who have similar church-style community support systems gain similar benefits.  But aside from that, its not so clear that religion increases well-being overall.. despite the few obvious benefits it does provide.   Religion also creates a divisive world, where people are often discarding useful knowledge gained (in say, the last 2000 years), in favor of the proclamations of ignoramouses from the ancient desert.  A few marginal benefits aside, this probably comes at a tremendous cost to humanity.  So I just really doubt that religion is the optimal solution to the depression problem, or to the sickness problem... it gets a few things right, sure.. but its not clear that those things are part and parcel of religion - or that religion is necessary for us to get those benefits.

And you  seem quite willing  to use the  force of the  government they
chartered to compel them against their happiness.

Because that is what you "ought" to do.

I'm also quite willing to use the government to compel you to respect the rights of black people.  There simply are no good reasons, which are not arbitrary or based in irrational prejiduce to exclude homsoexuals from the institution of marriage.  If you can provide some, I'd love to hear them (I asked for this before, you have failed to provide).

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm also quite willing to use the government to compel you to respect the rights of black people.  There simply are no good reasons, which are not arbitrary or based in irrational prejiduce to exclude homsoexuals from the institution of marriage.  If you can provide some, I'd love to hear them (I asked for this before, you have failed to provide).

Who says it is arbitrary and irrational?

You, apparently.

So let's start demanding a typed thesis on why people vote for each position they do. No good thesis? You can't vote for it. Thus spaketh Zura-thrust-up.

You should tell the Christians that just because their sky-friend told them something was wrong they aren't allowed to petition for a policy because the fact it came from their sky-friend makes it irrational and aribtrary.

Or maybe you'll run it through your bullshit filter first to make sure what they value comports with what you value so you can be the earth-friend who checks and vetoes the sky-friend whenever he gets out of line.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Back on page 4 I wrote:

...Ask any soldier deployed to Afghanistan about the local custom of "Man-Love Thursday." They [do not] see women as objects of sexual gratification, only pro-creation. Sex for fun comes from their fellow man.

Today at the Dump I found:

The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Thu May-12-11 10:12 PM
Original message
Afghanistan Human Terrain Team Pashtun Homosexuality Report
   
Afghanistan Human Terrain Team Pashtun Homosexuality Report

Key Observations

- Aculturally-contrived homosexuality (significantly not termed as such by its practitioners) appears to affect a far greater population base then some researchers would argue is attributable to natural inclination.
- Some of its root causes lie in the severe segregation of women, the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribal codes, and the depressed economic situation into which young Pashtun men are placed.
- Other root causes include a long-standing cultural tradition in which boys are appreciated for physical beauty and apprenticed to older men for their sexual initiation. The fallout of this pattern of behavior over generations has a profound impact on Pashtun society and culture.
- Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships in several contexts.
- Pashtun men are freer with companionship, affection, emotional and artistic expression, and the trust bred of familiarity with other men. They often lack the experience of these aspects of life with women.
- This usurping of the female role may contribute to the alienation of women over generations, and their eventual relegation to extreme segregation and abuse.

…

Findings

Military cultural awareness training for Afghanistan often emphasizes that the effeminate
characteristics of male Pashtun interaction are to be considered “normal” and no indicator of a
prevalence of homosexuality. This training is intended to prevent servicemembers from reacting
with typically western shock or aversion to such displays. However, slightly more in-depth
research points to the presence of a culturally-dependent homosexuality appearing to affect a far
greater population base then some researchers would argue is attributable to natural inclination.
To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid western discomfort is to risk
failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture—one with a variety of
potential implications upon the efficacy and applicability of ISAF efforts and on the long-term
future of Afghan society.

HTT is often approached for advice by US and British servicemembers who report
encounters with men displaying apparently homosexual tenancies. These servicemembers are
frequently confused in the interpretation of this behavior. The British newspaper article below
may be written with an attempt at humor, yet the Marines quoted typify the reaction often seen in
servicemembers upon their initial encounters with Pashtun males. As HTT has observed with
frequency while on patrols in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, these men are outwardly
affectionate toward both one another and male ISAF members, are extremely gentle in their
demeanor and touch, and have often taken great care in embellishing their personal appearance
with fingernails dyed red, hair and beards hennaed in careful patterns, and eyes very occasionally
subtly outlined.

full report here (has link to 18 page pdf report):
http://publicintelligence.net/afghanistan-human-terrain... /

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1092947

[JohnnyReb]

Back on page 4 I wrote:

Today at the Dump I found:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1092947

Sounds like Pashtan Muslims are democrats....hippo-critters.