Gay marriage? Let's have a referendum

[DJKillaQueen]

Well unfortunately I think most people would agree that a view that seeks to end descrimination, as opposed to one that upholds it is more valid. But as you are too cowardly to say what you really think then let's just leave it at that.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Well unfortunately I think most people would agree that a view that seeks to end descrimination, as

> opposed to one that upholds it is more valid.

Hmmm. I'd argue that one. It's a bit too classic Guardianista - "my view is right... because, um... it is". You have some very solid arguments. You don't need to rely on such a tenuous position.

Besides, as an example, would you consider that an opinion that seeks to end discrimination against, say, paedophiles as opposed to one that upholds it is more valid? I think not.

[StraferJack]

Blimey Loz - that's a bit of dodgy logic if ever I saw it

when DJKQ talks about discrimination, I think it's read that she is talking about discrimination against people who aren't doing anyone any harm - because of sexuality, skin colour or whatever. To bring paedophiles into the equation is strawman devil's advocating Gone Mad

And has nowt to do with liberal, Guardianista views

[El Pibe]

"strawman devil's advocating Gone Mad"

I love this!!

I think Loz has a fair point if we're going to get all philisophical.

DJKQ is proferring some sort of moral absolutism. Given societal morals in our day she's definitely on safe ground in terms of social consensus and the direction we (the majority, not we the guardianistas) are trying to push society in and push society away from.

But things always get shaky the moment anyone starts saying this is right and that's wrong.

Loz is right to say that she has hitherto made a good case for why society should push for an end to discriminatory practices or mores agasint same sex relationships, their standings and opportunities, but declaiming an anti-discrimanatory absolutism deserves to be be pushed to its logical conclusions.

I don't think that's straw man at all, and certainly isn't advocational devil or not, more reductio ad absurdum (aaagh, I hate getting all latin, but in this case it serves nicely; next person who uses 'ad hominem' in lieu of 'personal, I will shoot however).

[StraferJack]

I know what you and Loz are saying - I get it. I do

But if I'm not allowed to read this thread and say "silverfox is beyond hope. Again" because of philosphophical arguments, then I give up

"But things always get shaky the moment anyone starts saying this is right and that's wrong. "

There are some things we can be absolute about tho, surely?

[El Pibe]

Nope. (see what I did there?)

[El Pibe]

Naa, I know I'm being picky but there are some things that we can be definitive about, but there are simply no absolutes.

Even when we try to be concrete in our own definitions we often struggle?

It all gets very grey very quickly.

[El Pibe]

But, as usual, I digress.

Back to the matter in hand....

[StraferJack]

True, we have all been here before

[El Pibe]

That mockney knew what he was talking about. Whatever happened to him eh?

[DJKillaQueen]

I think though there is a clear line between defending the rights of innocents (gays, foreigners and any other group that just is) and the rights of those who break the law (peadophiles). Although I take the point....for me that's a no brainer. And there are some things where there is a clear moral right. We outlaw murder for example. That is right. We outlaw unwarranted prejudice. That is right, and so on.

The interesting thing about your link SJ is the following statement from SF in relation to female circumcision......

Personally I think the practice is abhorrent and should be banned world-wide. However, many people would seem to disagree with me, including many women, due to their religious and cultural practices.

So SF accepts that some views are abhorrant even when backed by a firm religious belief. It's a pity SF can't see descrimination against homosexuals (a view SF would back with religious doctrine if only he/she had the courage to discuss it openly in this debate) with the same abhorance he/she views female circumcision.

[silverfox]

DJKQ

"...So SF accepts that some views are abhorrant even when backed by a firm religious belief..."

Of course I do, I don't like to see discrimination in any form - what do you take me for DJKQ? (you don't need to answer that).

The issue in question is whether we need to re-invent the term marriage when there does not appear to be any demand for the change, even from the gay community. You have stated on here DJKQ that you didn't give the issue much thought before so it obviously wasn't high on your list of priorities.

You should be thanking me for bringing your attention to this issue.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> I think though there is a clear line between defending the rights of innocents (gays,

> foreigners and any other group that just is) and the rights of those who break the law

> (peadophiles). Although I take the point....for me that's a no brainer. And there are some things

> where there is a clear moral right. We outlaw murder for example. That is right. We outlaw

> unwarranted prejudice. That is right, and so on.

"Those who break the law". Didn't Alan Turing break the law by simply being gay?

Do we outlaw all murder? Was Osama bin Laden murdered?

Sex with an underage person is illegal. If two 15 year olds have sex, whom should be arrested?

This is why the whole 'moral right' idea is flawed. No argument can claim moral right, because you get into an absolutism that just doesn't work. And then you need to start qualifying this absolutism with phrases like 'unwarranted prejudice', which then bring subjectivity straight back into the mix.

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> And has nowt to do with liberal, Guardianista views

It's not the liberal Guardianista view that tends to succumb to the this, it the weird lefty stuff. The sort of thing that seemed to power the entire Occupy movement.

[El Pibe]

SJ - "But if I'm not allowed to read this thread and say "silverfox is beyond hope. Again" because of philosphophical arguments, then I give up "

Oooh, I kind of skirted this issue.

I don't think anyone was saying that's the case SJ.

In fact that was more or less the scenario hypothetically painted in the moral relativism thread you lunk too.

I recall that *ahem* mockney was arguing that this is as much an invalid position as that of the moral absolutes. The idea that nothing can be said or judged because all positions that are held are equally valid.

It's just the opposite end of the spectrum.

What we have to do is find our own position that is either accomodated within the society that we belong to or attempt to change the ever-shifting moral tides of a society to better fit our views.

I think Silverfox is of the feeling that he can no longer see the shore he once walked confidently on and is trying to pull that shore to him.

You are well within your rights to say what you think within the moral framework of our society.

Indeed this is a must have debate lest the shift in one direction is deemed to be some sort of moral tyranny. Moral shifts should be rational, justified and most importantly by social consensus.

I believe that in this matter your feet are dry.

We may disagree with the likes of Silverfox, and I believe are on the right side in this, but it would be a hard heart not to have some empathy at the very least with people who have seen their moral truths, those taught to them by parents, teachers, vicars (boo hiss) in the past, pulled out from under them in a confusing new world.

*with apologies to silverfox for making him sound like an extra from Cocoon!!*

[Brendan]

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> You are well within your rights to say what you

> think within the moral framework of our society.

Is the double meaning in this sentence intentional?

[El Pibe]

I hadn't, but they both work for me :)

[Brendan]

It does quite nicely illustrate that specific duplicity within liberal western opinion.

[El Pibe]

Shall we call it liberal fascism?

[Brendan]

Well it?s not that fascist so maybe, conservative fascism would be better.

[silverfox]

El Pibe wrote:

>

> *with apologies to silverfox for making him sound

> like an extra from Cocoon!!*

No offence taken El Pibe, you make some good points

[Huguenot]

"I think Silverfox is of the feeling that he can no longer see the shore he once walked confidently on and is trying to pull that shore to him. "

That's a hard fought intellectual concession.

[DJKillaQueen]

But SF you still haven't said if you think gay Christians should be allowed to have their relationship blessed in a church before God. That is the whole point here, not whether we call it a marriage or not. You have to decide if you are going to accept that first before you can argue the toss on what it should be called. If you think no, you are not only unfairly descriminating against gays but also supposedly fellow Christians, and knowing that, is why I think you won't say where you stand on it - better to say nothing than admit a belief in prejudice eh ;).

I think I should just give up on you tbh.....and the shore analogy is a pretty good discription I think of your moral dilemma - wanting to believe in the orthodox, when deep down you really know the moderate view is the fairer one.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But SF you still haven't said if you think gay Christians should be allowed to have their

> relationship blessed in a church before God. That is the whole point here, not whether we call it a

> marriage or not.

Personally, I have no opinion on this, myself (not being a member of any religious organisation). That is up to the members of the church/mosque/temple whatever to come to terms with, within the bounds of their own faith.

On the other hand, when it comes to the state, same sex marriage should be the accepted norm.

[silverfox]

DJKQ:

"But SF you still haven't said if you think gay Christians should be allowed to have their relationship blessed in a church before God..."

I see this is one of the issues that has driven The Archbishop of Canterbury to retire early.

There is no simple yes or no on this.

[DJKillaQueen]

That is the Archbishops own choice I'm afraid. There is a simple yes or no answer depending on belief. I don't accept that you don't have a view in principle on this point whatever the consequences might be either way. You did in an earlier post agree that it was wrong to descriminate against someone because they merely are gay and that the law was right to outlaw decrimination. You can;t have it both ways if that's what you genuinely believe. And If we all went through life sitting on a fence then nothing would ever change. Sometimes people have to be prepared to change too.