CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Logic gave us epicycles... observation (even poor observation) gave us the foundations of celestial mechanics.

Ahem, the theory was consistent with early observations.


It was not untill more detailed observations where available and the number of epicycles had to increase that occam's razor compeled us into searching for a better solution.


I claim our "observations" of the way the human mind works are comparable to the observations of Hipparchus. This means that the margin of error is to large and allows for conflicting theories to explain phenomena equally well.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I'm not, I'm asking you to be rational. I never said there is only one way to have a consisten ethical system within what we know about our universe. There are several valid hypothesies, just don't combine ones that have nothing to do with each other.

Your current position is in conflict with several stances you have made in the past. If we had about an hour of time I could point out what logically follows from your curent position, and I can tell you you would not agree with it. I am only hoping you yourself see a few contradictions with other ethical dylemas, since for me to drag those out would be threadjacking.

Actually, I beleive I have no logical inconsistencies... so would be very interested if you think I have any.

The point being is that any logical system has to be constrained by reality.

Ming and others arguments aren't. He claims that reality is one way, and then when I say it isn't and point (not reference, and once more I appologize for that) to examples showing that it isn't, he ignores them.

This isn't a system consistent with our universe.

Our universe doesn't allow all possible logical systems within it. Now I admit, it might come out that incest is entirely a cultural construct and if we suddenly made it legal everything would be OK. I am open to changing my position. But at least currently such a position is speculation, not based on the common view.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Ahem, the theory was consistent with early observations.


It was not untill more detailed observations where available and the number of epicycles had to increase that occam's razor compeled us into searching for a better solution.


I claim our "observations" of the way the human mind works are comparable to the observations of Hipparchus. This means that the margin of error is to large and allows for conflicting theories to explain phenomena equally well.

You are missing the point. And not remembering the occasion right either (the point wasn't the use of Occam's Razor).

And I agree, the margin of error is large. You still can't go and just ignore all observations though. Just because they might be wrong. You are all ignoring all observations to fit what you want reality to be (in your logic).

JM

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
So either you think I am making stuff up/misremembering the papers I have read. Or you and Ming are thinking that this is some sort of "No, you are wrong and I am right " match.

JM

And that's where you are wrong... I'm saying that there is no absolute at this point, that neither side is right or wrong... that there isn't really enough HARD evidence to prove one side or the other right. Society and the cultural bias will effect any such studies. We don't have enough information.

But there are some simple truths...

Some Hetero couples are happy with their marriages
(but remember the divorce is rate is 50%)

Some gays are happy in their relationships

Some group relationships are happy in their relationships

Some couples who are relatives are happy in their situations


Yes, some situations have higher failure rates than others... and some of that could be because of the individuals, or the preasure that society puts on them.

And some people are in terrible relationships...

AND NO TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP IS PERFECT FOR EVERYBODY!

And that is why I state the government should not discriminate because of the type of relationship.

You claim that it is in the best interest of the governement to have strong, happy and stable relationships... they come in all shapes and sizes and the government should condone none, or all.

I'm not trying to press any personal opinin on anybody. What I'm doing is respecting everybodies opinion to make their own choice on what will make them happy.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Either give me reasons why my examples are wrong, or give sources that show that my exampels are wrong.

I am saying that the "equipment" available is not good enough to conclusivley prove the prevaling theory.




Or even to make it likley enought for it to be most probably true. I have a deep suspicion for things that can not be conclusivley prooven but are accepted because they conform to our culture.


And finaly even if your theory holds out, and you say we should form goverment policy accordingly why doy you not support several other policies that seem supported by equally weak science? I will tell you why, because they do not conform to your culture.


And I will be damned the day I assume an anthorpocentric universe, that is likley to be what we assume it is. If anything history has shown us we tend to be wrong about the unvierse.

[Jon Miller]

So you are saying that there is no evidence. That all our observations are garbage.

Well, fine, but understand that I am going to ignore everything you say. Until such time as you provide evidence.

Logic without evidence is just intellectual masturbation. Completely worthless.

JM

[SpencerH]

My opposition to this arbitrary ruling by 5 judges is that I believe it will harm, not help, gay rights. There's gonna be a backlash. Unlike de-segregation which was at least in principal supported by the non-segregationist states, there is no state in this country where gay marriage has not been soundly defeated in referendum by overwhelming majorities. What will it mean for gay rights if the people of California vote to amend their constitution?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
So you are saying that there is no evidence. That all our observations are garbage.
JM

No... I didn't say that. I did say that it is inconclusive at this point, and that there are many different opinions on the subject. You wish to only believe the opinins that support your personal biases.

I tend to still have an open mind since there still is disagreement, and the science of the mind is not yet a hard science. You take a patient to two different shrinks, and they both could come up with different opinions.... there is room for doubt.

[Jon Miller]

Ming, you are completely ignoring my point:

Most 'normal marriages' help people (based on statistics).

Most incestial and plural relatationships hurt people (Based on statistics).

As such, the goverment should support normal marriages and not support incest and plural relationships.

The whole issue of whether the goverment should discourage incest and plural relationships is a very different matter. That gets into rights. You don't have the right to force the government to give you benefit for something the government doesn't want you to do.

The government should go based on evidence. Not on how a few wish reality to be. That is why the government should teach evolution, and not creationism.

JM

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Well, fine, but understand that I am going to ignore everything you say. Until such time as you provide evidence.

Logic without evidence is just intellectual masturbation. Completely worthless.

JM

You haven't provided any evidence except your own opinion... so I guess you would call that completely wothless as well

[MrFun]

I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


No... I didn't say that. I did say that it is inconclusive at this point, and that there are many different opinions on the subject. You wish to only believe the opinins that support your personal biases.

I tend to still have an open mind since there still is disagreement, and the science of the mind is not yet a hard science. You take a patient to two different shrinks, and they both could come up with different opinions.... there is room for doubt.

OK, ignore the harm in incestial relationships part. How about the statistics which show that plural (non-marriage) relationships are less stable than 2 person (non-marriage) relationships.

How about the statistics that in most plural relationshisp people aren't being taken advantage of or abused?

These aren't opinions. These are statistics.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Our universe doesn't allow all possible logical systems within it.

Never said it does. But the thing is we don't know our universe! We have a few parts of the jigsaw and they don't quite fit. What we know about our universe is so incomplete that it normaly does not give us good guidance on how to run our society. Heck, our knwoledge is so incomplete that almost any logical construct we dare dream up is possible*!



I mean heck God hasn't (conclusively) been disproven or proven to exist and that is normaly a pretty damn big variable in the way you set up your society and world view



*(do not confuse possible with probable)

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread.

No problem.

A quick summary... even JM thinks Gays should be allowed to get married. I think BK is the only hold out.
So we hijacked the thread to talk about all forms of possible marriage.

I think this thread is a great example that more and more people are begining to accept the idea of gay marriage

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ming


You haven't provided any evidence except your own opinion... so I guess you would call that completely wothless as well

I remember statistics. I agree, I just remember them, I don't have links/cites handy. But still, that is a lot better than nothing.

JM