|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I have heard that at least in this country same sex couples divorce more per capita, but that this is probably because most divorces happen in the first few years, and same sex marriages have perforce happened more recently on average than others.
Well that and same sex marriages have had how long to generate statistics?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I have heard that at least in this country same sex couples divorce more per capita, but that this is probably because most divorces happen in the first few years, and same sex marriages have perforce happened more recently on average than others.
My country was the first to have marriage equality (a fact of which I'm more than a bit proud). I just found a list of who divorces most: 1) heteros 2) lesbians 3) male gays
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Thank you all for a most entertaining thread.
I have read how SCOTUS got it all wrong because they did not bother to consult the Bible or Tradition. Just a reminder; they are only supposed to consult the Constitution. Admittedly, the Constitution is a bit technical and boring, but there you are.
I have also read how marriage is about procreation. My sarcastic reaction is: Thank God, I had two kids so I have done my duty and my marriage was not a total abomination in the eyes of God.
My non-sarcastic reaction is: Who in the hell do you think you are reducing my marriage to sex capable of procreation or not? I married because I love my wife and I wanted to share my life with her and have her share my life with me. Children certainly was a thought we both had. It was not, however, a factor in deciding to get married, or in any decision to stay married after our two boys had popped out of the womb.
Procreation is possibly the dumbest, most insensitive, and absolutely wrong headed argument I have heard since that old standby homosexual marriage will destroy straight marriage. Neither argument takes into account any shred of human dignity or worth because every human being is a child of God. Both arguments give me the creeps and make me feel like someone thinks they have any right to peep past my curtains to see how I am living and tell me how I ought to be behaving.
It is worth wondering if you are actually helping yourself if your arguments make people want to wash their eyes out after reading what you write.
But, for those of you keeping up that argument - Please keep it up. You are batting for acceptance of homosexual union with every word you write.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't it your whole argument that doing other things with all these natural arrangements is immoral? A chair is for sitting on so standing on it to reach something on a high shelf is immoral. Sex is for procreation, so deriving pleasure from it is immoral. Marriage is about raising children, so a married couple co-authoring a book is immoral.
All of these are obviously wrong. Standing on a chair is using it differently, not contrary to its purpose. Deriving pleasure from sex is ordered to procreation, since it motivates us to procreate. And co-authoring a book with your spouse would be immoral only if it had significant negative impact on the care you give your children, as would be true for co-authoring a book with anybody else. Please read this before you construct further "test cases".
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The other obvious question is why children being raised by homosexual couples not need a "child raising team"?
They certainly do. But are you trying to claim that the reason why gay marriages should be allowed to exist is that they are "intrinsically ordered to" adopting children?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And largely irrelevant as far as U.S. law goes, which does not stipulate fertility as a condition of marriage.
Neither does the natural law tradition...
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would just say that you're jumping from is to ought.
Indeed, that's pretty much the entire point. And the statement that this cannot be done is simply false.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I continue to find your functionalist description of the human body as bewildering as always. It is supremely divorced from reality. Your penis is for both ejaculation and urination. Your mouth is for both eating and breathing. Your nose is for both breathing and smell. Your ears are for both hearing and balance. Your eyes are not only for seeing but play a crucial part in your attractiveness to potential mates. Your appendix is quite possibly for nothing much, although there's some debate about this. Your belly button's usefulness expired many years ago.
"Multi-functionality" simply is not a problematic issue at all for natural moral law. All this means is that you get two consider two (or more) purposes for a thing, and possibly their interference. For example, it is true that you should not try to breathe and eat (well, specifically swallow) at the same time, because you might end up killing yourself by food pieces shutting down your breathing. And if something has no particular use, then frankly what is there to discuss? I have some difficulty imagining what immoralities you are planning to commit with your belly button, but generally they would involve immorality in other functions to which the belly button is simply accidental.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Food is for both nutrition and pleasure, and you believe this if you've ever gone to a restaurant in your entire life. But when it comes to sex, you are utterly determined to rule out pleasure as a purpose. It's absurd.
I'm not sure why this is rocket science... the pleasure you experience in eating is because eating provides you with nutrition. It's the biological carrot that evolution dangles before your nose so that you work to provide your body with sufficient nutrition. It's not something separate. That said, it is of course entirely possible and indeed morally licit that you eat for the joy of eating. Because this joy is ordered to nutrition, this is usually not contrary to the function of nutrition gathering, or contrary to the general flourishing of your life. However, if you eat for the pleasure of eating, and then induce vomiting to avoid the nutrition, then you are setting the pleasure of eating against nutrition by your action, and that is immoral. Likewise, if you overeat significantly because you cannot get enough of the pleasure of eating, then this is contrary to the overarching goal of your flourishing, and hence also immoral (namely, the sin of gluttony). None of this is particularly surprising or far out, I would say.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because you cannot tell me with a straight face that when someone brings a cake to work, and people have some of it when they're not actually hungry, you stand up and declare "eating this is immoral".
If they eat the cake because they enjoy the cake, then they still follow the (pleasure-induced) general purpose of gathering nutrition. As long as this does not become contrary to their general flourishing, i.e., as long as they do not become too overweight, this is not immoral. This may also be eating for the purpose of socialising. Again, we may assume that some medieval nobles had sex with their assigned spouses not because they particularly enjoyed it, but because they felt the pressing social need to maintain their bloodline. These things are not generally immoral, since one is still executing the various functions correctly. That's not the same as saying that they are therefore good. But the morality of such acts is then really located in the "higher purposes", not in the "lower act", which is as such good or at least neutral.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I have no idea about IngoB's personal circumstances, but this seems to be the general philosophical position he advocates.
This does not even qualify as an ad hominem, this is simply an attempt to shut down the discussion with the lowest blow you think you can get away with.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Based on what IngoB reports about the RC view of marriage: marriage is a fertility rite. Actual procreation is not the point. Rather, being able to stick tab A into slot B is the point, in order to honor the principle of procreation. Like the best rites, this rite incorporates symbolism: in this case tab A and slot B that can be fit together. Those who believe in this fertility rite take it very seriously, such that people doing anything else with their tabs and slots, and even worse desecrating the rite by using the rite's name without having an ability to stick tab A in slot B, are doing something awful.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Procreation might be one of the purposes of marriage, sure, why not? It's not the only one though, that would be naive over-simplification. A marriage is never said to have failed if it doesn't produce children.
It's even more nonsensical to say that the defining purpose of marriage is procreating if you're looking at it from a Christan perspective; biblically it's clear that another purpose of marriage is as an imperfect window onto the love of Christ for His Church. As the Church, despite being often referred to as female (presumably at least partly from this Bride of Christ analogy), has no inherent gender, and as Christ, whilst male during His time incarnate, is part of the Godhead of the Trinity, and is therefore one with both Father and Spirit, and Yahweh has not even a name ("I Am"), let alone a gender, that particular spiritual function of marriage can't really be limited to m/f unions, so cannot rule out equal marriage.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
IngoB, my observation of philosophers (or ethicists) is that they don't always agree, and about some fairly fundamental issues. Why do you believe that the Magisterium has got the right end of the stick in this particular aspect of Natural Law?
For this question, I'm positing for the moment that the Natural Law premise of being able to deduce morality on teleological grounds is sound.
[ 01. July 2015, 18:18: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
IngoB wrote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
(I would just say that you're jumping from is to ought.)
Indeed, that's pretty much the entire point. And the statement that this cannot be done is simply false.
I don't recollect saying that it couldn't. Obviously it can be done, but lends itself to equivocation. For example, the term 'natural purpose' seems ambiguous to me, and in fact, 'purpose' itself.
For example, 'the purpose of the plates on the back of Stegosaurus is cooling', (or whatever), is not really teleological. The 'purpose' of sex can be seen both in teleological terms, and not.
'Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale'. (Porter, Macbeth).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my observation of philosophers (or ethicists) is that they don't always agree, and about some fairly fundamental issues. Why do you believe that the Magisterium has got the right end of the stick in this particular aspect of Natural Law?
Have you seen some actual Natural Moral Law philosopher (not some philosopher arguing against Natural Moral Law) defending "gay marriage"? I would be quite keen to read / hear that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well, haven't heard any Creation Scientists arguing against Creation Science either, so...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
IngoB, I'll investigate. (I know Google is only a starting point, not an authoritative source to be cited.)
Do you know of any current natural law philosophers outside of the Catholic Church?
Do you think I'll be persuaded that natural law is the correct basis on which to found an ethics if I find that all natural law ethicists speak the same way on same-sex marriage? I'm just as likely to conclude that there's something extremely damaged about natural law as a foundation for ethics if those are its conclusions.
Now I'm curious about other ways that philosophers seek to ground ethics.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, I'll investigate. (I know Google is only a starting point, not an authoritative source to be cited.)
Do you know of any current natural law philosophers outside of the Catholic Church?
Do you think I'll be persuaded that natural law is the correct basis on which to found an ethics if I find that all natural law ethicists speak the same way on same-sex marriage? I'm just as likely to conclude that there's something extremely damaged about natural law as a foundation for ethics if those are its conclusions.
Now I'm curious about other ways that philosophers seek to ground ethics.
Especially since the contents of "natural law" are pretty much dictated by the RCC (or equivalent depending on one's denomination). They cannot be arrived at experimentally. As I noted and IngoB so pointedly ignored.
[ 01. July 2015, 22:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In response to the SCOTUS ruling Mississippi is considering stopping issuing marriage licences altogether
Hardly surprising. The last time a Supreme Court case came down that Mississippi (and a lot of its neighbors) really didn't like it was willing to pretty much dismantle its entire public education system to get around it. This is just an application of past tactics to current disputes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
The US Episcopal church has just voted to allow same-sex marriages to be performed by willing clergy with an 87% majority vote among both clergy and laity.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan Rasch
Shipmate
# 49
|
Posted
Alleluia!
--------------------
* A cyclist on the information bikepath
Posts: 509 | From: Boston, MA USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The US Episcopal church has just voted to allow same-sex marriages to be performed by willing clergy with an 87% majority vote among both clergy and laity.
That article got so many simple things wrong—identifying Michael Curry as presiding bishop instead of presiding bishop elect, calling the meeting General Assembly instead of General Convention—that I thought I'd check and make sure they got the other facts right. They sort of did.
According to this Washington Post story, the canon was amended, but a compromise reached in the House of Bishops provides that bishops can still prohibit same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed in their dioceses.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
These things are not generally immoral, since one is still executing the various functions correctly.
Basically, your argument is "if you ejaculate anywhere other than a vagina, you're doing it wrong".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Possibly not relevant, but the genealogies in the NT are both sexes (but overwhelmingly men). From memory I think Bathseba and Ruth are mentioned in one or the other.
Matthew's genealogy gives a male lineage but also names a few spouses: Tamar (who seduced her father-in-law, Judah), Rahab (the prostitute), Ruth (who seduced Boaz), Uriah's wife (who was taken by David, but she isn't named), and Mary (Joseph's wife). Luke's genealogy has no women though Mary gets mentioned elsewhere.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Again, I have no experience of US legal practice, but the majority judgment seems very thin on legal argument - a strong moral case, but not a legal one. I'm even more surprised by the language in the minority decisions. Dissents here are couched in much tamer words, and agains with much greater legal content by the standards I'm accustomed to.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Again, I have no experience of US legal practice, but the majority judgment seems very thin on legal argument - a strong moral case, but not a legal one. I'm even more surprised by the language in the minority decisions. Dissents here are couched in much tamer words, and agains with much greater legal content by the standards I'm accustomed to.
There is definitely a general difference in legal writing style. Although judges at the Supreme Court level are not elected, I still have a sense that the whole process is far, far more politicised in the USA than here.
There seems to be a basic assumption that on most matters the vote of about 7 of the justices can be predicted before the case is even heard, with only 1 or 2 'swing votes' in the middle determining the outcome.
We simply don't have anything like that situation in Australia. You do get the occasional High Court judge that develops a bit of a reputation as 'conservative' or 'liberal', but there's rarely the sense that that was the whole purpose of their appointment in the first place.
I also have a theory that the USA writing style goes more for finding memorable turns of phrase because the founding documents of the USA go more for that style. Their Constitution is a new country declaring its independence and new way of doing things. Ours is basically an 1890s free trade deal.
[ 02. July 2015, 08:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
I have just found out about this decision (no internet for a while) and am totally ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Orfeo - what are the chances of Australia allowing same sex marriage? I know the PM is very conservative on the issue, but is the rest of the Parliament as staunchly opposed as he is? I don't really know anything about politics over there, but when the legislation went through here I was astounded at some of the conservative politicians who backed it.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am curious about marriage as a legally defined procreative measure. For example, in Texas, the then Attorney General (Abbott), used this argument - that the state of Texas had an interest in married couples producing and looking after children - in his defence of bans of ssm.
I think a federal judge had ruled the ban unconstitutional, and of course, the Supreme Court has done the same now.
I am just curious as to how much the US legal system has promoted procreation as an important element in marriage. I think in the UK, civil marriage law does not refer to children - in other words, if you want to get married, a registrar or clerk is not going to quiz you about this.
This suggests that natural law arguments have been obliterated in the secular state's legal systems.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Orfeo - what are the chances of Australia allowing same sex marriage? I know the PM is very conservative on the issue, but is the rest of the Parliament as staunchly opposed as he is?
I would think enough of the Parliament is still staunchly opposed, yes. The fact that conservative governments have been perfectly able to pass this reform in similar countries is unlikely to be an indicator here, because it's the hard right that is in charge, not the moderates.
This article includes a table that gives you the numbers within the government (as well as depressing double-standards over whether to allow a vote in the first place, given what the PM had said earlier), and personally I don't think the numbers from the Opposition are going to be enough to overcome this. Obviously what matters here is the numbers in each House of Parliament, not the numbers overall, but it's not looking great.
[ 02. July 2015, 10:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A chair is for sitting on so standing on it to reach something on a high shelf is immoral.
Standing on a chair is using it differently, not contrary to its purpose. Deriving pleasure from sex is ordered to procreation, since it motivates us to procreate.
Not really seeing the distinction. It's just as easy to argue that non-procreative sex is just "using it differently", but you claim in that case any kind of different use is inherently immoral.
At any rate, this seems very similar to originalism's ladder, where you simply pick the level of abstraction you need to get the result you desire. In this case something along the lines of "only men and women can produce children, so therefore it is inherently wrong for the state of New Jersey to pay the same death benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees that it pays to opposite sex partners". I skipped a few intermediate steps there, but that's essentially what your take on American jurisprudence boils down to.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Again, I have no experience of US legal practice, but the majority judgment seems very thin on legal argument - a strong moral case, but not a legal one.
Yes, it's a bit frustrating. There probably would have been a bit more solid legal reasoning if the case had been authored by Notorious RBG, but Kennedy seems to be the weather vane on this issue and committing to one standard of legal reasoning might have frightened him off. An analysis of why this may cause problems in other areas of gay rights.
quote:
Much worse than its aesthetic problems, however, is where Kennedy leaves equal protection law as it pertains to LGBT rights more generally. As with Kennedy’s Doma opinion – about which I wrote that he “flirt[ed] awkwardly with federalism, due process and equal protection rationales without ever quite summoning up the courage to invite one to the prom” – he maddeningly continued in this opinion to vaguely invoke both equal protection and due process theories without clarifying the applicable standard when it comes to LGBT rights more generally. “Each concept – liberty and equal protection – leads to a stronger understanding of the other,” asserted Kennedy.
The problem with Kennedy’s judicial vagueness is that public officials and lower courts need to know whether classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, like those based on race or gender, or whether such classifications require only a “rational basis”, like economic regulation. If heightened scrutiny applies, states can only use sexual orientation classifications in law if it they are closely related to a compelling state interest – a test states usually fail. If states need only a “rational basis,” courts are generally very deferential to the state. After Friday’s opinion, it seems obvious that heightened scrutiny is being applied in practice, but Kennedy inexplicably refuses to say so. The refusal to define sexual orientation as subject to heightened scrutiny will lead to unnecessary confusion, and possibly permit federal and state judges to deny LBGT rights claims that even Kennedy might think should be upheld.
By not being more specific about his rationale for forcing all states to recognize and perform same-sex marriages, Kennedy leaves open the legal possibility that marriage is the only form of discrimination against same-sex people that is covered by the 14th Amendment. But LGBT people face many other types of discrimination – in public accommodations and in employment, for example – that now may have to be fought out case by never-ending case in the lower courts.
So given that it's still legal to discriminate by sexual orientation in many U.S. states when it comes to employment, housing, or a whole bunch of other areas, simply requiring the states to treat same-sex couples in the same manner as opposite-sex couples when it comes to marriage, while important, doesn't provide wider guidance. For example, it now seems as if, in a lot of jurisdictions, it is legal for an employer to respond to an employee trying to register a new same-sex spouse in the benefits program by saying "you're fired".
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am just curious as to how much the US legal system has promoted procreation as an important element in marriage.
Virtually not at all. It's pretty much a dishonest legal tactic hauled out to justify continued discrimination against a disliked minority rather than a longstanding legal standard. "They can't have kids, therefore hospital visitation rights for each other are unnecessary and immoral" is an argument that gets advanced only for same-sex couples.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Croesus
Thanks for that. Well, totally ignorant about US law, but I was mulling, that since the US govt is explicitly not founded on Christianity (or any religion), you would think that US law would not use Christian (or religious) arguments, although you can of course, argue that procreation is not specifically a religious point.
I was trying to find out about individual states, and it does seem laughable that recently, as in Texas, they have been declaring that marriage involves procreation, gays can't procreate, therefore gays can't marry. It smacks of panic really, but I guess that the fat lady has now sung, unless some states try to resist the Supreme Court.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Orfeo, that was depressingly clear. Thanks.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Do you know of any current natural law philosophers outside of the Catholic Church?
I think the phrase 'natural law' in ethics tends to send the signal that the writer is going to espouse a conservative sexual ethic, and therefore people using similar argumentative structures tend not to use the phrase.
I think one can build an argument in the Aristotelian tradition that underlies natural law that would make sex with a partner of the same sex permissible (where sex with a partner of the opposite sex would be).
The argument would I think run that sexuality in human beings has the purpose of pair-bonding in excess of any procreative purpose and that pair-bonding is a good ordered to the good of the human being in society irrespective of any procreative purpose. To separate out the genitals and to say that their purpose is solely procreation seems to be considering the genitals outside the context of the whole human being in society. The good of each part ought to be ordered to the good of the whole.
The strength I think of natural law approaches is that they try to ground ethics in the lived existence of human beings rather than in abstract considerations that could equally apply to angels. The problem with the Roman Catholic natural law approach to sexuality is that it goes back to an abstract consideration about the purpose of sexuality.
quote:
Now I'm curious about other ways that philosophers seek to ground ethics.
There are three main schools in secular thought:
You can try to ground ethics in what humans want or find pleasant, so that ethics is a way of resolving conflicts: generally utilitarianism, and forms of contractarianism or game theory based ethics.
You can try to ground ethics in reason or logic, which is the broadly Kantian tradition.
You can try to ground ethics in the human biology, psychology and sociology, which includes natural law theory and also other forms of virtue ethics.
Introducing God (or other supernatural elements) allows for a fourth school, divine command ethics, and also allows for variations and refinements on the above forms.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are three main schools in secular thought:
You can try to ground ethics in what humans want or find pleasant, so that ethics is a way of resolving conflicts: generally utilitarianism, and forms of contractarianism or game theory based ethics.
You can try to ground ethics in reason or logic, which is the broadly Kantian tradition.
You can try to ground ethics in the human biology, psychology and sociology, which includes natural law theory and also other forms of virtue ethics.
Introducing God (or other supernatural elements) allows for a fourth school, divine command ethics, and also allows for variations and refinements on the above forms. [/QB]
This says to me that all ethics have to meet at least a couple of these criteria most of the time. An ethic that said that no human being could ever pee would never work out for more than ten minutes.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
In further US developments, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled yesterday by unanimous vote that the protections against workplace sex-discrimination set forth in the 1964 Civil Rights Act apply to sexual orientation.
It appears this decision will have the effect of banning sexual orientation discrimination in employment across the US. It is possible this decision may be challenged in court however, as the EEOC are authorized interpreters of the law rather than getting to set the law per se.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It appears this decision will have the effect of banning sexual orientation discrimination in employment across the US. It is possible this decision may be challenged in court however, as the EEOC are authorized interpreters of the law rather than getting to set the law per se.
Alas not: EEOC decisions are not binding federal law, but are treated as expert advice when related cases come to court. So some poor person will have to bring a suitably distinctive test case, and then we'll see if the various courts support the EEOC's position or not. My understanding is that it would only become legally binding on a national level if either all relevant jurisdictions ruled for it severally (unlikely); or if all the appeal circuits found for it severally (possible, but time-consuming); or if SCOTUS found for it (which requires an appealable decision on the point from a lower court).
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Bumping this thread because of a follow-on development.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Obergefell decision, the county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky (Kim Davis) has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to anyone in order to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples. She has simultaneously been requesting injunctions from doing her job on the grounds that her faith is opposed to this aspect of it. At every level Ms. Davis' claims have been rejected. Last Monday (August 31, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal, leaving standing the ruling that her religious beliefs were not an exemption from her duties as a government official.
Despite losing at every level, Ms. Davis continued refusing to do that part of her job and today the entirely predictable happened:
quote:
A federal judge here on Thursday ordered a Kentucky clerk jailed for contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, was ordered incarcerated after a hearing here before Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court. The contempt finding was another legal defeat for Ms. Davis, who has argued that she should not be forced to issue licenses that conflict with her religious beliefs.
“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
Judge Bunning said Ms. Davis would be released once she agreed to comply with his order and issue the marriage licenses.
The plaintiffs had argued in favor of fines rather than imprisonment. Probably because of the bad optics associated with this kind of self-martyrdom. Courts, on the other hand, get really tetchy when you defy their orders and don't care all that much about the "optics" of a situation when they think one the parties to a case isn't taking them seriously
Some points:
- Ms. Davis is a government official, not a private citizen nor a representative of a religious organization. This dispute isn't about her individual liberty, which she's free to express on her own time, but rather whether a government official can use their own prejudices to deny the legally recognized rights of the citizens she's supposed to serve.
- - In Kentucky the position of "county clerk" is an elected office, meaning that Ms. Davis has no immediate supervisor who can fire her. She can be impeached and removed by the state legislature, but they're adjourned until January. Even if they were in session, it seems likely that they'd regard this as a dispute between a local official and the courts, not something they'd want to get involved with.
If you're interested you can read a statement Ms. Davis put out through her lawyers (after her last appeal was denied but before her incarceration) explaining her actions in her own words.
I'm sure there will be those who consider this to be a violation of Ms. Davis' rights, but remember that the "right" she's arguing for here is the "right" to not do her job while still getting paid and not getting fired. That's a "right" very few people actually enjoy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
My first response was that she is an idiot. This might seem to lack nuance, but then so does the situation.
She plainly and simply does not have the right to keep her job and fail to do it.
She. Is. An. Idiot.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The principled thing for her to do in response to the legislation, would have been to resign.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The principled thing for her to do in response to the legislation, would have been to resign.
Personally, I think she thinks she is "fighting the good fight".
Cause Jesus wrote the American Constitution and was just kidding about the separation of church and state.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
All these people seem to think that "religious liberties" are absolute.
So, what happens when they encounter someone who sees murder as a religious duty in certain circumstances?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All these people seem to think that "religious liberties" are absolute.
So, what happens when they encounter someone who sees murder as a religious duty in certain circumstances?
You mean like (some) conservative American Christians who are in favor of the death penalty, or the really nutso ones who bomb abortion clinics or lynch black guys?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The principled thing for her to do in response to the legislation, would have been to resign.
She has said that to resign would be to violate her principles--which really says that it's not about her signing her name to a document she doesn't believe in, it's about her need to keep gay people from getting married. She's standing in the schoolhouse door, just like George Wallace (though it hasn't taken the National Guard to remove her).
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
According to the article I read in the New York Times, she was somewhat surprised to end up in jail. The Judge apparently found out during the trial that she has people who promised to fund her so fining would not force her to change her mind.
At last sighting, 4 of 5 of her clerks have agreed to perform marriages as ordered by the Judge with the potential for going to jail for refusing. The fifth is her son who has not been threatened with any penalty for refusing.
There are several other similar clerks. She can't really be fired easily since she's elected. I don't know if the Judge could appoint a special master, with the salary paid by fining her all of her salary, but we'll see if the clerks actually perform the marriages.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
There are several other similar clerks. She can't really be fired easily since she's elected. I don't know if the Judge could appoint a special master, with the salary paid by fining her all of her salary, but we'll see if the clerks actually perform the marriages.
They're not even supposed to perform marriages, just issue licenses. Essentially their job is to confirm that a couple meets the legal requirements to marry under the laws of Kentucky.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, the laws of Kentucky are not the same as the moral code of a small number of Christians based on their particular interpretation of a couple of verses of the Bible.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, the laws of Kentucky are not the same as the moral code of a small number of Christians based on their particular interpretation of a couple of verses of the Bible.
Given Kentucky's reputation, I'm sure there are any number of jokes that could be made there.
[ 04. September 2015, 13:19: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
One thing I don't understand: didn't she consider that publicity would mean her own rather complicated marital history would come to light? (AIUI: 3 marriages (and divorces?); child with another man; married the kid's father.)
Not condemning her for her history...but maybe she's not the best person to be teaching about ideal marriage?
Of course, she's straight, so that must make everything ok.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
She remains in jail this morning. At this point, it isn't for refusing to issue licenses herself, but because she wouldn't promise the judge she wouldn't interfere in her deputies issuing them.
Whatever claim she had for personal religious freedom flew out the window when she escalated this to preventing anyone in the office from issuing the licenses.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Some people think that people who take a stand like she has are principled. But actually she is unprincipled. She has allowed herself to feel good, even elated, because of the mythology of a principled person standing up to government for their individual rights. But she isn't any of that.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I have not been able to find any details about the religious affiliation of Ms. Davis. She talks about the Bible but not (as far as I can tell) any specific church.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have not been able to find any details about the religious affiliation of Ms. Davis. She talks about the Bible but not (as far as I can tell) any specific church.
Apostolic Christian (?)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
The Yahoo article "Why aren't there more Kim Davises?" lists the compromises some states have made to avoid this situation. (E.g., having someone else take over marriage license duties.)
But I found the comments to be the most interesting--and, for Yahoo, they're surprisingly calm. There was an especially good one about 45 min. ago, by a former Marine named JT. (Sorry, there doesn't seem to be a way to link directly, which is why I mentioned the time.) He wrote about taking an oath, as he did when he joined the Marines, and the consequences.
There are also pro Ms. Davis comments.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think it is reasonable to compromise for existing employees - provided the service is still covered - but people should only be hired who are prepared to do the job as it now is.
That said, a compromise is making sure someone in the department does it, not tolerating deliberate disruption of the service.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I disagree DT. This wikipedia chronology of SSM in the province of Saskatchewan in 2004 and the provincial gov't's attempt to "accommodate" in 2011 provides some idea of how this might need to go. The problem with accommodation of certain people employed to provide a service is that it sets some people apart:
quote:
from a court referral on the question
"it is enough that the effect of the legislation is to deny equal protection or benefit of the law"
"if enacted, will create situations where a same-sex couple contacting a marriage commissioner for the purpose of getting married will be told by the commissioner that he or she will not provide the service requested. This is not a merely theoretical concern. It is entirely clear from the affidavits filed ...
[It] will have the effect of drawing a distinction based on sexual orientation.... Gay and lesbian individuals will be treated differently than other people who wish to be married. The differential treatment will be negative and will flow directly from their sexual orientation. "
court judgement here (terms of use are that it may be freely copied)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
