homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The next person I hear... (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The next person I hear...
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Human pairs of adults should be allowed form officially-recognized marriages. To whit: access to legal partnership privileges, family medical benefits, end-of-life decision authority, to celebrate their loving partnership, and all that jazz.


All and any human pairs of adults? Siblings, for example? Aunt/uncle and nephew/niece? Parent and (adult) child? There's a libertarian logic there. But if not, why not? Conerns about genetic defects, perhaps? But if that, why limit it to defects that might be caused by inbreeding? Why just pairs of adults- why not larger groups?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB: Anyway, minus the modern West, please do tell us about the variation cultural anthropology has found concerning what sexes are matched up in marriage, and whether that has anything to do with producing offspring. And you can skip any statement beginning with "they found some tribe in the rain forest..." Simple global stats will do.
From what I've understood, anthropologically speaking marriage isn't about how children are produced, it's about who they belong to. You're the one claiming that your concept of marriage is naturally showing up in our brain scans (or something like that; when you're making a claim it's up to you to make clear to us what it is); the burden of finding stats to support your claim is up to you.

(I do wonder though: do you want to base your argument about marriage on statisics? [Killing me] )

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It is bullshit. Regardless of the effect you might be able to summon with such experiments, a similar effect could be shown to exist for a myriad of other irrelevant aspects, such as skin colour, religion, language traits, or political affiliation. Moreover, you have not even a shred of reason to assert that said effect would be consistent or meaningful.

It's weird... people keep saying that this is "bullshit", and then they list ever more possibilities where such a study could be relevant. It would indeed be interesting to see if one can track reaction time delays or neuroimaging signatures also in other instances where a high level cognitive idea may be in conflict with established lower level classifiers. The problem with something like "race" would presumably be to find an appropriate control group, i.e., I can probably still find otherwise relatively equal groups of people who are for or against "gay marriage" (to show the absence of delay in the "anti" group, for example). But I'm not sure that it will be easy to find an appropriate control group of avowed racist if one tries something similar with race. That reaction time experiments can track "cognitive cost", and that fMRI contrast can single out "task-relevant brain areas", is not particularly controversial, I would say. So I don't really know why you think such experiments would be outlandish or likely to fail.

There seems to be a seriously anti-scientific "certain things are better left unknown" attitude coming through here. Relax. If this is bollocks, then that's what the experiments will show. If it is not, then you can still interpret this in various ways as far as politics and morals go. And I'm not about to become an experimental psychologist anyhow...

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And it is deeply flawed - because all these aspects are indeed irrelevant. Human pairs of adults should be allowed form officially-recognized marriages. To whit: access to legal partnership privileges, family medical benefits, end-of-life decision authority, to celebrate their loving partnership, and all that jazz.

That's simply a category error. Your socio-cultural / political ideology might be right or wrong according to whatever standards one might judge this by. But that's neither here nor there for the question whether the suggested psychological experiment is "deeply flawed". The experiment would be deeply flawed if it cannot discern "cognitive conflict", if that's what it sets out to do. The evaluation of such conflict, if experimentally detected, is simply in a different category. Or are you saying that it would be unethical as such to detect "cognitive conflict" in people? Why?

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
How about you move on to addressing global warming, like you've been instructed to do.

I'll wait for the papal legate to knock on my door.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
From what I've understood, anthropologically speaking marriage isn't about how children are produced, it's about who they belong to. You're the one claiming that your concept of marriage is naturally showing up in our brain scans (or something like that; when you're making a claim it's up to you to make clear to us what it is); the burden of finding stats to support your claim is up to you.

We are not talking about "brain scans" here, we are talking about your claims concerning "cultural anthropology" and its findings. If you have trouble understanding that, then please re-read the first sentence of the quote above, where you make yet another claim pertaining to that field. It is indeed up to you to produce evidence for your claims...

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(I do wonder though: do you want to base your argument about marriage on statisics? [Killing me] )

You made a claim about the purported huge variation in "marriages" across the world. Variation is something that can be statistically described, and hence I have asked you to provide statistics actually relevant to both your claim and the topic at hand. (And by the way, I was being nice to you, by allowing you to count any small tribe in the Amazon as a data point. Rather obviously, if we simply do statistics across number of people, rather than the number of weird and wonderful groups of people anthropologists make a career out of studying, then the usual "man-woman" marriage would be statistically utterly overwhelming...)

--------------------
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
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This part of the discussion started when you made the claim that the 'natural' definition of marriage is about two people coming together to produce children and caring for them, and that our adherence to this definition would show up in our brain scans (once again, or something like that).

It's up to you to back up this claim. The best thing to do of course would be to point us to a peer-reviewed article that would show us these brain scans. I don't think you can do that.

What I'm doing within our argument, is casting reasonable doubt on your claim. In fact I don't even need to do that. Once again, you're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to back it up. But I'm doing it because I'm being nice to you (succesfully arguing against my doubt would strenghten your claim).

My anthropological knowledge is very limited, but it is enough to give me the idea that your definition of marriage isn't universally held by pre-contact cultures around the world. This alone is enough to cast doubt that this definition is hard-wired into our human brains.

Casting doubt is all I need. In fact, it is more than what I need. You made a claim. Back it up or stick it somewhere where you'll break your religion's prohibition against pleasuring yourself.

--------------------
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
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Human pairs of adults should be allowed form officially-recognized marriages. To whit: access to legal partnership privileges, family medical benefits, end-of-life decision authority, to celebrate their loving partnership, and all that jazz.


All and any human pairs of adults? Siblings, for example? Aunt/uncle and nephew/niece? Parent and (adult) child? There's a libertarian logic there. But if not, why not? Conerns about genetic defects, perhaps? But if that, why limit it to defects that might be caused by inbreeding? Why just pairs of adults- why not larger groups?
The problem with most of the examples you give are that when you have generational differences between family members, there are issues of coercion, if not possible abusive behavior. That makes it a wholly different beast for a general policy.
Of course, marriages between aunts/nephews and uncles/nieces were
not uncommon in Eurpoe into the late 19th Century among certain privilidged classes.

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!

Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting: hadn't heard of those avuncular marriages.
it is perfeectly possible to think of situations where theere would be no coercion. Jill gives birth to a son at the age of 13: he is given up for adoption andd she loses touch with him. In her late 30s she meets Jack, a man in his mid-twenties: they fall in love and decide they would like to marry and start a family. Before the marriage Jill discovers that Jack is in fact her son. Should they be allowed to marry: and if not, if you take the view that Rook seemed to be proposing, why not? And as this thread is about SSM, let's say that Jim fathers a son at the age of 13 and loses touch and...etc etc.? Should Jim and Jack, who he later discovers is his long-lost son, be allowed to contract an SSM? No concerns about genetic defects there.

[ 02. July 2015, 21:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's up to you to back up this claim. The best thing to do of course would be to point us to a peer-reviewed article that would show us these brain scans. I don't think you can do that.

Let's see, a postdoc, a fraction of my time, some equipment, compensation for participants... I would say about £0.6M. I will give you peer-review articles, about 1.5 years from start of funding. No sweat.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But I'm doing it because I'm being nice to you (succesfully arguing against my doubt would strenghten your claim).

You are not being "nice", you are being an idiot. Of course I don't have results in hand of an experiment I just thought up! And it doesn't matter anyway, since I didn't make any grand claims there. Other people did. I only said that I think I can demonstrate that A.R.'s brain still registers the difference between a (heterosexual) marriage and "gay marriage", even though she says there is none. If that happens to be wrong, and I cannot detect what I think I can, then gay marriage is still immoral. If I can demonstrate it, you can still celebrate A.R.'s point of view (now additionally for overcoming her own brain).

None of which gets you off the hook if you now make grand claims supposedly supported by "cultural anthropology". This is not some "double negation is an affirmation" game. Even if I was failing to provide evidence for my claim (which I'm not by any reasonable standard), this does not mean that you don't have to provide evidence for your entirely different claims.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
My anthropological knowledge is very limited, but it is enough to give me the idea that your definition of marriage isn't universally held by pre-contact cultures around the world. This alone is enough to cast doubt that this definition is hard-wired into our human brains.

First, again, where is your actual relevant evidence of any kind? How many pre-contact cultures supporting "gay marriage" have in fact been found?

And anyway, that "hardwired" here cannot possibly mean totally determined and fully incapable of other behaviour is perfectly clear. Because we have encountered at least one exceedingly strange tribe that is following its tribal rulers into allowing "gay marriage". And that would be you lot! I'm relatively certain that you are still human beings, and you are apparently fully convinced that "gay marriage" is a bright idea. So that just is possible for human minds. We know that, we don't have go to Papua New Guinea to find a strange tribe that organises its social life like that. We do. Or at least you do.

[ 02. July 2015, 21:31: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or, alternatively, we could go away and look for neuroscience papers which may give some light on this subject rather than continuing to post further drivel.

I am not a neuroscientist, but this paper looks tangentially related.

I dare say that if IngoB went and made an effort to look for more studies, he'd find that there is already a scientific body of evidence.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB: Let's see, a postdoc, a fraction of my time, some equipment, compensation for participants... I would say about £0.6M. I will give you peer-review articles, about 1.5 years from start of funding. No sweat.
You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. I can't believe that I'm arguing the basics of discussion with you.

If I argued like you, I could claim anything. Homeopathy works. Give me 10M and I'll prove it to you. QED.

quote:
IngoB: I only said that I think I can demonstrate that A.R.'s brain still registers the difference between a (heterosexual) marriage and "gay marriage", even though she says there is none.
So do it. And if you want to deduce from this that marriage between a same sex couple is immoral, one of the things you also need to show is that this difference doesn't show up between other kinds of marriages (that we agree are moral). And oh, you also need to show how you arrive from these different brain states to a moral judgement.

quote:
IngoB: If that happens to be wrong, and I cannot detect what I think I can, then gay marriage is still immoral.
You can't just assert that, you need to show that. And without referring to your hierarchy as a moral authority if you want to convince me.

quote:
IngoB: First, again, where is your actual relevant evidence of any kind?
I don't need evidence, you do. You claim that your definition of marriage is 'natural' and would show up in brain scans. You haven't given evidence of that.

A corollary of your claim is that your definition of marriage would arise naturally across all cultures. This is another thing you would need to show.

quote:
IngoB: How many pre-contact cultures supporting "gay marriage" have in fact been found?
My claim isn't that pre-contact cultures supporting marriage between same-sex couples have been found.

What I'm contesting is that marriage is universally across cultures seen as a commitment between two people to produce and care for their offspring.

This is another claim you made. Show me your evidence.

quote:
IngoB: And anyway, that "hardwired" here cannot possibly mean totally determined and fully incapable of other behaviour is perfectly clear.
You need to make clear to me what your claim means, not the other way around.

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If that happens to be wrong, and I cannot detect what I think I can, then gay marriage is still immoral.

So let's save those 600,000 pounds then. Why the fuck even bring it up?

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. I can't believe that I'm arguing the basics of discussion with you. If I argued like you, I could claim anything. Homeopathy works. Give me 10M and I'll prove it to you. QED.

If you had actually proposed some new experiment that could demonstrate that some specific aspect of homeopathy works, and if that experiment was reasonable in terms of its design, and if your request of "10M" was motivated in terms of its needs, then you would be arguing a bit like me. And if I then told you "but you need provide the evidence of this experiment right now" then I would be in the wrong. Because it would be obviously unreasonable to expect you to produce evidence of a future experiment.

I do not need to provide the evidence of a future experiment that I have just suggested. You merely do not have to believe that this future experiment would produce the kind of evidence I think it would. That is how a reasonable discussion would proceed in such a case.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And oh, you also need to show how you arrive from these different brain states to a moral judgement.

Yes, it would be really nice if I had commented on whether and how such an experiment could be cashed out morally. Oh wait, I have discussed that extensively. Above.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You can't just assert that, you need to show that. And without referring to your hierarchy as a moral authority if you want to convince me.

I could for example spend time arguing about that using philosophical argument from natural moral law theory. Oh wait, I have done that, in many posts in two different threads. See above and in DH.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
IngoB: First, again, where is your actual relevant evidence of any kind?
I don't need evidence, you do.
Of course you bloody need evidence for the claims that you make. The burden of proof does not somehow asymmetrically just apply to me. Now, unlike me, you have made a claim about what is supposedly known already in cultural anthropology. You have not proposed some future experiment or expedition in this field, you have said that they have discovered this or that. Well, on request you then need to back that up.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
A corollary of your claim is that your definition of marriage would arise naturally across all cultures. This is another thing you would need to show.

No, that's not a corollary. It may be part of the nature of a dog to have four legs. But that does not mean that all dogs we find in nature have four legs. And obviously dogs do not have philosophical definitions, they just have a number of legs. If there is not something that systematically stops that from happening, then we can reasonably expect that most marriages one finds in the world are between males and females, and that children are typically expected to result from such a formal relationship, as seen in various child-related social rules attached to these formal relationships. Since what I've just said is true for the vast majority of marriages we find in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa, there is little doubt that this is the case as simple "global average". If you want to do some special pleading here because you think that insufficiently represents what some tribe somewhere in a rain forest is doing, then you need to tell us what they are doing, and why that should change our mind.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
My claim isn't that pre-contact cultures supporting marriage between same-sex couples have been found. What I'm contesting is that marriage is universally across cultures seen as a commitment between two people to produce and care for their offspring. This is another claim you made. Show me your evidence.

Well, actually that is not a claim I have made. What I have said is that marriage is principally ordered to procreation, the begetting and raising of children. And unless there are systematically disturbing factors, like say a SCOTUS decision, one would expect to see this rendered into intimate long-term arrangements between men and women, where the resulting offspring is being take care of. This still allows for say polygamy or polyandry. It also allows for systems where family members (say grandparents) are expected to take over child care duty. It does however not allow for "gay marriage".

--------------------
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      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If that happens to be wrong, and I cannot detect what I think I can, then gay marriage is still immoral.

So let's save those 600,000 pounds then. Why the fuck even bring it up?
Kinda get the feeling that if Jesus came back and said he was cool with marriage equality, IngoB would explain to him why he was wrong.

--------------------
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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
IngoB
I only said that I think I can demonstrate that A.R.'s brain still registers the difference between a (heterosexual) marriage and "gay marriage", even though she says there is none. If that happens to be wrong, and I cannot detect what I think I can, then gay marriage is still immoral. If I can demonstrate it, you can still celebrate A.R.'s point of view (now additionally for overcoming her own brain).

There is no fMRI (functional MRI) or other "brain scan" evidence that supports any such contention. What we can show is that people show some consistent patterns of arousal in their neurology that gives us a likelihood that they are turned on, but we can't differentiate much.

We can do sexual preference testing with physiological measures that measure either amount of erection or via an anal or vaginal probe. Which only confirms that a person is aroused by what they either say they are or not.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You start with discussing some (pseudo) science ideas you want to investigate, and then go on to reject anything it might tell you before there is any data. I don't believe you know anything about this area at all. As well as being a jerk in the way you consistently interact with others.

--------------------
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
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074

 - Posted      Profile for Socratic-enigma     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
…the view of an old, straight, conservative, atheist:

Primates, like all animals, have evolved various social behaviors to maximize reproductive efficiency. The advent of complex language, together with an increasing capacity to comprehend and explain the environment, led to the creation of myths to elucidate; and the codification of this behavior among homo-sapiens. Despite arising independently, in widely dispersed and varied locations, these laws are remarkably similar in many areas – notably in the concepts of marriage and adultery (particularly as it relates to women).

Interestingly, where complex urban societies have evolved in the animal kingdom, the population has been primarily asexual (ants, bees and in mammals, the Naked mole-rat). Clearly a population comprised of 50% wanna-be alpha males has been found to be incompatible with a complex society.

Large urban populations of homo-sapiens is, in evolutionary terms, a recent phenomenon. The most notable change has been in the status of women, and secondly in the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. This may lead to the collapse of society (though I am not aware of any evidence to support such a view), but as a personal preference, I’d rather live in a Scandinavian-type society, than one resembling Putin’s Russia.

Whether or not such behavior is immoral will ultimately be determined by natural selection.

S-E

--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume

Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is no fMRI (functional MRI) or other "brain scan" evidence that supports any such contention.

I proposed two experiments, a reaction time and a fMRI one, respectively. I have almost exclusively discussed the former though, which does not involve a "brain scan", as the better and simpler one.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You start with discussing some (pseudo) science ideas you want to investigate, and then go on to reject anything it might tell you before there is any data.

I've stated precisely what my suggested experiments, in particular the reaction time one, may teach us, and I have rejected various interpretations advanced here by others as going beyond what one can reasonably expect to learn from such experiments.

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't understand this tangent. What is reaction time supposed to show?

Moreover, I am perfectly happy to believe that I would have different reaction times comparing straight and gay relationships - and most likely for men/women in powerful jobs, for people with mismatched heights compared to equal heights, for old vs young and so on.

So explain how this shows anything more than my social conditioning. Even if these things are all shown, that doesn't mean that I actually believe any of them.

[ 03. July 2015, 07:41: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand this tangent. What is reaction time supposed to show?

A significant conflict between different levels of your social conditioning, or possibly, a conflict of your social conditioning with some more "hardwired" systems. The experiment would be exactly about giving some practical and quantitative meaning to the (rather odd, if you think about it) statement that you "do not believe in your social conditioning".

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]A significant conflict between different levels of your social conditioning, or possibly, a conflict of your social conditioning with some more "hardwired" systems. The experiment would be exactly about giving some practical and quantitative meaning to the (rather odd, if you think about it) statement that you "do not believe in your social conditioning".

I have thought about it. I want to be a better person than the one generated by my social conditioning, hence I am often rebelling against my first reactions. Isn't everyone?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If that happens to be wrong, and I cannot detect what I think I can, then gay marriage is still immoral.

So let's save those 600,000 pounds then. Why the fuck even bring it up?
Kinda get the feeling that if Jesus came back and said he was cool with marriage equality, IngoB would explain to him why he was wrong.
Except he won't return doing/saying that: when He returns there'll be other matters on the agenda.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have thought about it. I want to be a better person than the one generated by my social conditioning, hence I am often rebelling against my first reactions. Isn't everyone?

Your new aspirations are also socially conditioned, of course.

--------------------
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
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When the Admins are scraping the Ship for barnacles could they possibly remove this thread? Although it is keeping tedious matter out of Purgatory I'm sure it isn't helping the Ship make any progress.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397

 - Posted      Profile for Patdys     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The B in IngoB doesn't stand for Borg does it?

[Razz]

--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.

Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To be honest, no one gives a shit any more. His ultra-reductionist pseudo-scientific mumblings are so far from the idea of a transcendent community inspired by the person of Jesus as to be beyond embarrassing.

I've met hard-core Marxists with more compassion and grace than this 'Christian'.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
When the Admins are scraping the Ship for barnacles could they possibly remove this thread? Although it is keeping tedious matter out of Purgatory I'm sure it isn't helping the Ship make any progress.

Seconded. And TBH most of those posting here- with the exception, actually, of Ingo, with whom I ultimately disagree on the question of SSM- are not doing their credibility any favours. The hooting of the Yahoos is becoming deafening and, worse, boring.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand this tangent. What is reaction time supposed to show?

A significant conflict between different levels of your social conditioning, or possibly, a conflict of your social conditioning with some more "hardwired" systems. The experiment would be exactly about giving some practical and quantitative meaning to the (rather odd, if you think about it) statement that you "do not believe in your social conditioning".
Like I said I don't think you know anything about the area. You propose reaction times, whereas no one would do that sort of research outside of cognitive psychology labs, and even then....

There is almost no evidence for hardwired things in higher order psychological things like "object relations", which is what you are suggesting. There is evidence for hard wired sexual responses, essentially reflexes, such that genital stimulation by anything, person, machine, animal, other will cause detectable arousal. Which shows us that humans are very very sexual, and not much else. Polyperverse if you prefer, which I think you do.

What you might consider is to stop pretending to apply science to this and just admit you're pumping a doctrinal and moral view. Full stop. It'd be more honest.
quote:
Proverbs 6:16–19
There are six things that God strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.



--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry, I missed the part where this was ever supposed to be a thread about establishing credibility?

The original point was a simple one: that people who run the marriage as procreation argument wilfully ignore the fact that non-procreative marriages are already perfectly legal.

I don't give a flying piece of excrement whether they're acceptable to a particular denomination, a point I made in the first post. Because people aren't out in the public sphere debating whether the Catholic Church or the United Methodists or the Lesser Free Argentinian Baptists should allow same-sex marriages, they're debating whether the secular law should allow same-sex marriages. And they are doing it in a thoroughly disingenuous fashion when they raise the procreation argument, because I've yet to see any Christians protesting against non-procreative marriages when the couple is straight.

That's it. End of. There simply isn't anything to discuss beyond the rank hypocrisy of people introducing theological moral arguments into secular debate while they're pretending not to.

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I'm puzzled at the idea that Hell threads were meant to establish credibility or make progress. Eh?

It is quite odd when the religious argue about how secular marriage (in a secular state) should proceed. I suppose they are saying, that although it is secular, it should still be guided by these moral principles, and hello, I happen to have some at hand.

But the secularization of marriage has peeled away a lot of stuff - e.g. indissolubility, constant fertility, the legal erasure of women - and so on. Hence, the abandonment of sex identity (or gender, in modern idiom) as a requirement is a further 'minimization'.

Hence, the idea of traditional marriage is quite odd - which tradition do you yearn to return to? Coverture?

--------------------
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      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You propose reaction times, whereas no one would do that sort of research outside of cognitive psychology labs, and even then...

Do you have some kind of problem with cognitive psychology? I don't. I am however indeed a computational neuroscientist, not a cognitive psychologist.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is almost no evidence for hardwired things in higher order psychological things like "object relations", which is what you are suggesting.

What I am suggesting is that there will be a delay in reaction time when people are asked to classify whether a couple might be married, if the picture shows a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual one. And the presence of such a delay would point to some kind of additional "load" on the cognitive system, slowing it down, suggesting that internally "marriage" is not equally applied to both kinds of couples even if the participant states (say in a questionnaire) that there is no difference between such marriages. I guess the biggest confound would be simple unfamiliarity, but perhaps one can control against that (e.g., in participants who state that they know several gay couples, is the purported delay reduced or even absent?).

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
What you might consider is to stop pretending to apply science to this and just admit you're pumping a doctrinal and moral view.

I certainly think such results would be of interest for the doctrinal and moral discussion we are having here. That does not mean that they do not have a scientific life of their own.

--------------------
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
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hence, the abandonment of sex identity (or gender, in modern idiom) as a requirement is a further 'minimization'.

Hence, the idea of traditional marriage is quite odd - which tradition do you yearn to return to? Coverture?

You do know, don't you, that just because one accepts some changes one doesn't have to accept all of them? No of course you don't. Nothign is constant, nothing has an objective trugth or objective existence, nothing has any meaning other than the meanings which we assign to them. That way, matey, lies at best individual madness, at worst savagery and the law of the jungle.

And BTW it's not gender/ sex identity that's a requirement (where SSM does not exist), it's sex. I could call myself Alberta, dress as a woman, think of myself as a woman, but provided I'd got me bits intact I could still, before SSM came in, have got married to a woman.

[ 03. July 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
ut the secularization of marriage has peeled away a lot of stuff - e.g. indissolubility, constant fertility, the legal erasure of women - and so on. Hence, the abandonment of sex identity (or gender, in modern idiom) as a requirement is a further 'minimization'.

If you keep subtracting stuff from a concept, it is not unreasonable to say that at some point it is not sufficiently similar to the original to warrant the same label.

On the practical side of things, married status allows access to all sorts of governmental and legal provisions. Now, by virtue of "gay marriage", this can be accessed by intimate partners of the same sex. Can I ask why the state is still so hung up about sex? That made sense when all this was connected to children being born due to such sex. But now this connection is officially gone. Why then not simply allow people to designate a significant other of their choice that will enjoy these various provisions? If the state does not care about procreation, why exactly does it still care about sex? Why not simple let people get on with their intimate lives as they please, and give them an entirely independent means of designating some person of their choice as "significant other"? Married people could still designate their spouses, but why should someone who is currently not in an intimate relationship not be able to designate a friend? The state was in the business of incentivising procreation, is it now in the business of incentivising sex? Why exactly?

--------------------
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
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

And BTW it's not gender/ sex identity that's a requirement (where SSM does not exist), it's sex. I could call myself Alberta, dress as a woman, think of myself as a woman, but provided I'd got me bits intact I could still, before SSM came in, have got married to a woman.

According to IngoB, if you did not have the tackle, you wouldn't be married. As discussed above ad nauseum.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

Do you have some kind of problem with cognitive psychology? I don't. I am however indeed a computational neuroscientist, not a cognitive psychologist. [/quote]

Sounds like AI. You are a human computer, like StarTrek's Mr. Data's evil twin Lore.

You might approach some exposure to the discipline of classics, which was the west's first good challenge to received wisdom regarding family, relationships and sexuality.

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hence, the abandonment of sex identity (or gender, in modern idiom) as a requirement is a further 'minimization'.

Hence, the idea of traditional marriage is quite odd - which tradition do you yearn to return to? Coverture?

You do know, don't you, that just because one accepts some changes one doesn't have to accept all of them? No of course you don't. Nothign is constant, nothing has an objective trugth or objective existence, nothing has any meaning other than the meanings which we assign to them. That way, matey, lies at best individual madness, at worst savagery and the law of the jungle.

And BTW it's not gender/ sex identity that's a requirement (where SSM does not exist), it's sex. I could call myself Alberta, dress as a woman, think of myself as a woman, but provided I'd got me bits intact I could still, before SSM came in, have got married to a woman.

Well, by sex identity, I mean sex. Called gender today by many.

Your comments about savagery reminded me of the status of a woman in English law before about 1882, when in the married state she was a 'feme covert' with very few legal rights. As someone wittily said, marriage consisted of one person, the man, but this seems to have been legally correct.

One might also cite the 'brood-mare' aspect of married life for women.

One might venture that these aspects of married life were somewhat 'savage'. Of course, it was an organized savagery, so for that we must be thankful.

As to objective truth, I find that interesting, but not sure of the relevance. The truth of what?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
ut the secularization of marriage has peeled away a lot of stuff - e.g. indissolubility, constant fertility, the legal erasure of women - and so on. Hence, the abandonment of sex identity (or gender, in modern idiom) as a requirement is a further 'minimization'.

If you keep subtracting stuff from a concept, it is not unreasonable to say that at some point it is not sufficiently similar to the original to warrant the same label.

On the practical side of things, married status allows access to all sorts of governmental and legal provisions. Now, by virtue of "gay marriage", this can be accessed by intimate partners of the same sex. Can I ask why the state is still so hung up about sex? That made sense when all this was connected to children being born due to such sex. But now this connection is officially gone. Why then not simply allow people to designate a significant other of their choice that will enjoy these various provisions? If the state does not care about procreation, why exactly does it still care about sex? Why not simple let people get on with their intimate lives as they please, and give them an entirely independent means of designating some person of their choice as "significant other"? Married people could still designate their spouses, but why should someone who is currently not in an intimate relationship not be able to designate a friend? The state was in the business of incentivising procreation, is it now in the business of incentivising sex? Why exactly?

I think these are good points, and I have no idea how far the minimization of marriage will go, or should go. I suppose you could end up with a kind of contract between people, where sex is not involved, this is like many old jokes of course. But already, I guess, two people can get married who are not in love, and not proposing to have sex, although I'm not sure why they would, maybe for inheritance reasons, or pensions, naturalization, etc.

You could argue that all of the benefits accruing to married people (about a 1000 in the US, I've been told), should also be available to others. But it sounds like a complete legal minefield, and I doubt if society wants to go there anytime soon.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
...And BTW it's not gender/ sex identity that's a requirement (where SSM does not exist), it's sex. I could call myself Alberta, dress as a woman, think of myself as a woman, but provided I'd got me bits intact I could still, before SSM came in, have got married to a woman.

Well, by sex identity, I mean sex. Called gender today by many.


...by many who use language carelessly.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here quoth the great Blackstone:

“a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself”

Civilization or savagery?

(Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1756).

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And this is relevant because....?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know if you've read my post earlier, where I made the point that coverture was a kind of savagery for married women. Blackstone is describing some of the consequences of it.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, yes, but when did I defend coverture? Mill on the Subjection of Women- yup, been there, got the T-shirt. And yet, you know, coverture is a rather monstrous perversion of an idea of marriage that is has a good Biblical sanction for it- that in it the two spouses become one.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, there is some debate about how 'oneness' was approached before the 20th century, as we have Christian approaches, Platonic ones (rather rare, maybe), legal ones, as in coverture. I keep meaning to look into Christian views of coverture, but probably a bit obscure.

--------------------
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      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But already, I guess, two people can get married who are not in love, and not proposing to have sex, although I'm not sure why they would, maybe for inheritance reasons, or pensions, naturalization, etc.

Yep, and this is one of the truly stupid things about the whole situation. Two people who've only just met can get married. Two people who don't like each other but see a financial or citizenship advantage can get married. Heck, a gay guy and a lesbian can get married and use each other as cover while dating other people.

But two people of the same sex/gender/whatever we're calling it today? That's a dealbreaker.

It's a triumph of form over substance. The whole thing isn't about love, commitment, intention to procreate or ability to procreate. Nope. In fact, it's the same-sex couples that are trying to say that is what it's about, but instead of being welcomed for embracing the substance of matrimony, there's a bunch of people castigating them for having long in the wrong form.

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I suppose historically, marriage has been about many different things, such as romance, sex, inheritance, domestic servitude, respectability, blah blah blah, but secular marriage is not designated in any way, as far as I can tell. I mean, if you want to get married, I don't think you have to go to the town hall, and tell them that you want sex/romance/children/your wife's wealth, or whatever it is. I think the main impediments are already being married, and being intellectually incapable of understanding it. (Lots of jokes about that one).

Of course, tons of people are saying what marriage should be about, but again, presumably the secular version remains neutral. The arguments with IngoB are pointless in a sense, unless the secular state becomes a theocratic one (unlikely).

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yep, and this is one of the truly stupid things about the whole situation. Two people who've only just met can get married. Two people who don't like each other but see a financial or citizenship advantage can get married. Heck, a gay guy and a lesbian can get married and use each other as cover while dating other people.


I don't think this is true - at least not in the UK. First there is a statutory waiting period of 28 days between registering the intention to get married and the wedding.

Second, a registrar cannot marry someone who is not genuine. Anglican clergy, who have special status in law as registrars, have been imprisoned in the past for conducting "bogus" marriages. It seems in the UK that the usual sham-ness is related to trying to get some kind of immigration status, but it would be curious to know what would happen if the partners were "beards" to hide sexuality. Somehow I doubt that would be seen as being genuine.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But what does 'genuine' mean in relation to secular marriage? I doubt if a town hall registrar asks if you are in love, want sex, want children, and promise to do the washing up. Immigration is the big no no, it's true, but I can't see why two friends could not get married. Damn, I married an ex-friend once.

--------------------
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      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, if you want to get married, I don't think you have to go to the town hall, and tell them that you want sex/romance/children/your wife's wealth, or whatever it is. ... Of course, tons of people are saying what marriage should be about, but again, presumably the secular version remains neutral. The arguments with IngoB are pointless in a sense, unless the secular state becomes a theocratic one (unlikely).

By your very wide definition of "theocratic", which apparently considers any direct influence of religious teachings on public policy as "theocratic", it would be more accurate to say that the state always has been "theocratic" everywhere - and in the West Christian "theocratic" for at least 1.5 millennia - until perhaps a century ago.

The state found in the (traditional) Christian marriage a package deal that was highly beneficial to its aims of improving the common good. In particular, the one thing any state absolutely must have is the next generation of citizens (and historically, with plenty to spare as cannon fodder...). That's why the state has incentivised marriage. It's ironic that just when the West would be heading for demographic disaster without a constant influx of immigration, it decides to unravel this package deal to drop the "begetting of children" and leave only the "mutual help" and "help against concupiscence". That is a victory of romantic idealism over pragmatism.

--------------------
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      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please. People procreated before marriage existed and they will no doubt continue if it ends.
For the state, marriage is about money and control. Same for the church getting involved. As has been pointed out, the church didn't begin to get fussed about it for a thousand years. And it took several hundred more to get rolling.
As for what is "Right" believe what you wish.
But to pretend that the moment the first organism split into two, there was a third there to consecrate is just silly.

[ 06. July 2015, 17:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People procreated before marriage existed and they will no doubt continue if it ends.

Not really... The nature of human pregnancies (long, and in the later stages, a considerable burden) and child-raising (incredibly long and involved) means that you need a very sophisticated and organised society to not have marriages in some form. I'm certain that "cavemen" had something we would recognise as "marriage", and should our current sophisticated social system crumble, then I'm certain our descendants will rely mostly on some kind of "marriage" again.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For the state, marriage is about money and control. Same for the church getting involved. As has been pointed out, the church didn't begin to get fussed about it for a thousand years. And it took several hundred more to get rolling.

Evidence of sacramental marriage is available through the Church Father (Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, ...) and various liturgical books and sacramentaries of the different Churches, Eastern and Western, from the earliest Christian times. But yes, it took a long time until marriage became properly established as sacrament even among the faithful. No doubt that's precisely because there were so strong prior traditions concerning natural marriage. It is interesting to note that the Orthodox had much stricter sacramental standards much earlier. Anyway, we are not discussing sacramental vs. natural marriage here. We are not discussing whether it is enough for a man and a woman to promise themselves to each other, or whether a priest needs to witness this (in a proper ceremony). We are discussing that it has to be a a man and a woman, a fact to which "common law" marriages prior to modernity witness just as much as "properly sacramental" ones.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But to pretend that the moment the first organism split into two, there was a third there to consecrate is just silly.

Indeed. The sacraments were instituted by Christ for His human followers.

[ 06. July 2015, 19:06: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But secularism has been slimming down marriage at a rate of knots. Indissolubility, woman as property, woman as brood-mare, marriage as religious, and now opposite sex identity, have been peeled away.

Does anyone really think we are going to see a reverse movement on these things? I suppose very right-wing governments might instigate this.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB,

You are the SOF version of Shirly Ellis.
"I can equate anything with anything else"

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ...  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools