Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2005, 08:49 PM   #71
Djinn Raffo
Ra
 

Join Date: March 11, 2001
Location: Ant Hill
Age: 49
Posts: 2,397
Quote:
Originally posted by Melchior:
All well and good, but the creator is mentioned in the following sentence. In any case the state of being created implies a creator. [/QB]
No it doesn't.

[ 04-28-2005, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]
Djinn Raffo is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 09:16 PM   #72
Azred
Drow Priestess
 

Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
Question Mark

Actually, it does. Whether or not you have religious or philosophical beliefs, the reality of the situation is that every person was indeed created by their parents.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true.

No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna.
Azred is offline  
Old 04-28-2005, 10:48 PM   #73
Melchior
Manshoon
 

Join Date: April 4, 2005
Location: Chicago, Il
Age: 54
Posts: 217
I wasn't created by my parents, I was birthed by them.

A creation is something formed by intent and design. Bothe the words creator and creation come from the VERB "create". A doing word by definition needs someone to do the doing.

It means: to bring into existence.

You could appear, develop or occur without a creator, but you cannot be created without one.

In any case it's moot, because the founding fathers clarified by saying that all men were bestowed certain rights by their creator (singular, not their parents for example)

Face it. The moral equality being espoused has it's roots in theistic morality. Everyone involved is seeking to legislate morality. If you have beliefs of right and wrong, and seek to make laws around them, you're legislating morality.
__________________
[url]\"http://www.myspace.com/melchiord\" target=\"_blank\">www.myspace.com/melchiord</a>
Melchior is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 12:13 AM   #74
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Actually, the morality of equality relates back to some things in Locke's second treatise. And, yes, it is theistic, as many of our founding philosophers were. Locke's morality based on theology is that you own yourself. In his view, once you mix yourself with the land through your labor, you own the fruits of such labor, as it is a product of yourself. That's his justification for property ownership.

From that justification for property ownership, we move into a philosophy of equality, based on the notion that no one, especially the government, should interfere with your ownership of yourself and your subsequent ownership of the fruits of your labor.

But, these men were religious, living in a time when most men were religious. The fact that an underlying truth of the human condition is revealed through or via a religious notion does not change the fact that it is an underlying truth. That's how I see it.

Anyway, you asked for a take on the language referencing "The Creator" in the Declaration. From my point of view, as an aetheist who recognizes that the universe is infinite and barely understandable, it is my view that the universe is the Creator. And, in my view, regardless of who or what the Creator is, equal treatment of the people by the government is an underlying concept that transcends any religious notion.

In my view, logic alone, sans religion, can justify the notion that the government ought to treat all people equally.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 01:02 AM   #75
Chewbacca
Zartan
 

Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
The Declaration of Independence is perfectly stated for my non-theistic beleifs.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The first bit is plainly non-theistic to me. The Creator refered to is #1. self-evident. #2 is my own. #3 Endowse me with some excellent and thoughtworthy rights. It could be my own self-image or pure imagination and still qualify.

The rest has nothing to do with, implied or otherwise, theism. Government is made by individuals- citizens the people and ruled by the governed- citizens the people. When government becomes destructive- and particularly limits the rights mentioned, than the people have right to alter, chnage and even abolish government to meet the demands of everyone's Self-evident rights. Government is changeable, that is our system.

Spells out to me why so much has changed since the Nation's inception and why more chnage is ahead- because laws were deemed bad. Then changed or abolished and the result- individuals and society were made healthier, freer and able to pursue more happiness.

I think the Declaration of Independence shows an ultimate statement of rational moral equality and superiority. A model of why leglislating "morality" isn't a bad thing.


Expanding freedom, securing equality, and creating space for the doors of opportunity to open are the superior morals. Which side is on this side? That should be the measuring stick for this debate.
Clearly The wrong side wants to limit opportunity and support legal inequality.

[ 04-29-2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores!
Got Liberty?
Chewbacca is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 02:09 AM   #76
Illumina Drathiran'ar
Apophis
 
5 Card Draw Champion
Join Date: July 10, 2002
Location: I can see the Manhattan skyline from my window.
Age: 38
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally posted by Melchior:
quote:
Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
quote:
Originally posted by Melchior:
I choose to be happy, sad, entertained or in love. Dunno about anyone else.
Screw all those depressed and suicidal people... They should be like you, and choose to be happy! [/QUOTE]Go ahead and laugh. The fact is you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control your reaction to it. [/QUOTE]Oh, I do laugh. Loudly and frequently.

See, the biggest problem with debating people like you is that I'm not allowed to blow smoke rings at you the way you're doing.

"So what are you saying? That victims of assault, domestic violence, rape, and terminal illness should just chin up? I think you need to justify your response here."

Okay then, you win. We're legislating morality. But MY interpretation of morality is more in line with the Constitution. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and infringes on their right to life, liberty, and happiness. Your morality here is not the Constitution's morality. How's that?

[ 04-29-2005, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]
__________________
http://cavestory.org
PLAY THIS GAME. Seriously.

http://xkcd.com/386/
http://www.xkcd.com/406/

My heart is like my coffee. Black, bitter, icy, and with a straw.
Illumina Drathiran'ar is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 04:07 AM   #77
Lucern
Quintesson
 

Join Date: August 28, 2004
Location: the middle of Michigan
Age: 42
Posts: 1,011
I have a couple of late responses to interject, as I assumed someone else would do it a few days ago.

Quote:
Azred said: It is very easy: "it's a choice." As I stated earlier, logically if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be at best a mental disorder and at worst a genetic disorder. Honestly, I would want to accept either of those conclusions and I am not homosexual.
I have friends who are homosexual and they agree that with me that their lifestyle is their choice. Like I said, they are homosexual because they want to be. I respect them for being true to themselves even though many others disagree with their choice.
I don't worry about possible repercussions to professional diagnoses of homosexuality at least. In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality from it's diagnostic list of mental disorders.

Quote:
In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSMII). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria.
The Board recognized that a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology. It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality.
When the DSMIII was published in 1980 homosexuality was not included although "ego dystonic homosexuality" was recognized as a category for people "whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation."
When the DSMIII was revised in 1987, "ego dystonic homosexuality" was deleted as a separate diagnostic entity because "In the United States, almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic." (DSMIIIR)
http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm

This, as well as just about any practical individual experience we might have, should prevent us treating homosexuality as a genetic disorder like Down's Syndrome(*), to use a particularly disabling genetic disorder. From a social perspective, homosexual people are fully functional, and what I've read would indicate that they've got higher than average education and income levels in the United States. You'll also note that the APA does not endorse "reparative therapies" that attempt to 'cure' people of homosexuality. On that point, this says more than I care to, though it does assert a failure rate of 99.98%, enough to provoke the explanation that only bisexual people may be 'repaired', or trained to repress urges for the same sex. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm


The hypothesis that homosexuality is purely a matter of choice is one that is currently, as it will always be, an opinion that cannot be examined as a falsifiable hypothesis (a prerequisite to scientific inquiry). In other words, there will never be any remotely objective evidence supporting it. In my opinion, it started on shaky ground and will be chipped away piece by piece as we learn more about human (and other animal) sexuality, the exact role of hormones in sexual development, and not just 'the brain', but how each brain differs. Ask yourself, what kinds of evidence could ever support this? The hypothesis that sexuality has biological components tempered by cultural influences, however, can be, and some would say, is already supported by scientific evidence. I bring this up because the scientific debate is about origins, between nature and nurture, not the choice of behavior.

Of course that wasn't stated as a hypothesis. More philosophically, is free-will a cross-spectrum universal assumption for humans? If so, it colors homosexuality, and indeed all behaviors in an entirely different light. To me, absolute free will is bad assumption. To say that "I make my choice" without considering the role that "I" have in that choice, what contributed to that choice, and what contributed to the development of the individual making that choice is tantamount to ignoring everything, be it biological or social, that goes into that person's development. It would be silly to pretend that we are slaves to fate, not responsible for anything we do, but IMO it's equally silly to pretend that we are fully free to make decisions without the clouding of emotion, biases, ignorance, or the benefit of experience and any capacity for human cognition. For a look at free will in a deterministic world, particularly in the evolution of human cognition, check out Daniel C. Dennet's Freedom Evolves.

An underlying point of mine is that we don't know the nature of human sexuality. I am obviously of the opinion that scientific inquiry, with a healthy dose of skepticism, supercedes any other method we have where it can be appropriately applied. However, if you find me making claims of absolute truth, which has taken this thread in loops already, it is sheerly by mistake or oversight. Even in the most well grounded science it's not right to say we can absolutely prove something. That's for mathematicians.**

Some have chosen to invoke personal experiences, anecdotal evidence, historical, theological/philosophical, and I do too, you know, being a fallible human and all that. None of those lead to absolute truth either IMO, though some such claims have come out of a couple of those lines of inquiry in this thread already. I think it puts us in the wrong by default when we speak of absolute truths (especially) when we're dealing with people, behaviours, or any other observable entities in real time (ie, in which falsifiable hypotheses could be tested).

I cannot recommend this article more as a reasonably up-to-date overview of scientific efforts to understand sexual preference. As I stated before, you won't find a definitive answer here, but you will probably learn something you didn't know before. I did. That's why we're here right? Maybe not...

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html


*I'm only guessing this what Azred meant by the term genetic disorder, at least in the context of how it would be a VERY undesirable classification. Of course, in the strictest functionalist-materialist definition, not having sexual desire or the wish to form lasting bonds with a person whom you could procreate with IS disadvantageous to a trait's chance to be replicated, but that's a practical problem between that trait and natural selection. Given any biological role in sexual preference, any moral decision on the matter is arbitrary and, if it's a moral judgement of condemnation, wholly at odds with the prevailing sense of justice others have described. It would be very similar to racism and sexism as I see it. Note that I happily noted Azred's fair equal disdainful treatment of all of us lessers

**I didn't want to interrupt the body with the following snotty comment: for those of us that accept that we don't yet know the exact nature of human sexuality, perhaps we shouldn't err on the side of discrimination, just as a precaution.
Lucern is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 12:55 PM   #78
Melchior
Manshoon
 

Join Date: April 4, 2005
Location: Chicago, Il
Age: 54
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
quote:
Originally posted by Melchior:
quote:
Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar:
quote:
Originally posted by Melchior:
I choose to be happy, sad, entertained or in love. Dunno about anyone else.
Screw all those depressed and suicidal people... They should be like you, and choose to be happy! [/QUOTE]Go ahead and laugh. The fact is you cannot control what happens to you, but you can control your reaction to it. [/QUOTE]Oh, I do laugh. Loudly and frequently.

See, the biggest problem with debating people like you is that I'm not allowed to blow smoke rings at you the way you're doing.

"So what are you saying? That victims of assault, domestic violence, rape, and terminal illness should just chin up? I think you need to justify your response here."[/QUOTE]Have you heard of the term "looking at the glass half full?" Sometimes it's hard to do, but if you chose to count the things youhave right now, rather than the things you've lost, or fear you may lose. Of course if you're in physical pain, that's not pleasant, but physical pain usually passes, and in any case exists as the body's warning and self protection system. So actually pain is a positive thing if you choose to see it as such. Without pain, you'd be like a leper. Limbs falling off, blood flow stopping, breaking bones.

Instead of just ridiculing optimism, why not try it for ust a second, and look around and take stock of all the "little things" you're taking for granted. Like being cogniscant. Speaking online to people who knows where. Being literate. Having enough logic to argue.

Or you can chose to look at what sucks.

Quote:
Okay then, you win. We're legislating morality. But MY interpretation of morality is more in line with the Constitution. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and infringes on their right to life, liberty, and happiness. Your morality here is not the Constitution's morality. How's that?
I disagree
__________________
[url]\"http://www.myspace.com/melchiord\" target=\"_blank\">www.myspace.com/melchiord</a>
Melchior is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 01:04 PM   #79
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Quote:
Originally posted by Melchior:
quote:

Okay then, you win. We're legislating morality. But MY interpretation of morality is more in line with the Constitution. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is discriminatory and infringes on their right to life, liberty, and happiness. Your morality here is not the Constitution's morality. How's that?
I disagree [/QB][/QUOTE]Well, you're wrong.

Tell you what, since you've asked for us to argue pretty thoroughly, why don't you do either of the following:
1. Tell us how the Constitution does not support equal treatment of Americans by the government; OR

2. In the alternative, tell us how forbidding gays from marrying or entering into some sort of civil union giving them access to the legal perks of marriage does NOT offend the constitutional requirement that those couples be treated equally. (Please note: ain't no one here dumb enough to buy the argument that "Gays can still equally marry --- they can marry people of the opposite sex." That's like saying "Jews are free to worship if we outlaw temples -- they can worship at church" So, please don't join the rest of redneck inbred Americuh in pretending that's an intellectual argument. Other than that, the field's wide open.)
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 04-29-2005, 01:52 PM   #80
Melchior
Manshoon
 

Join Date: April 4, 2005
Location: Chicago, Il
Age: 54
Posts: 217
I disagree that homosexuals are not allowed to marry Timber Loftis. You may poo poo the argument as redneck, but any man whether homosexual or otherwise, can marry any women, whether lesbian or otherwise. Additionally, any man can live, love and be happy with any other man. That the man-man relationship is not given the same financial benefits reflects the nature of Americas desire to create a certain society. Cousin-cousin marriages are disallowed in most states (Maryland is an exeption) for the same reason. So to are sibling marriages, parent-child marriages, adult-child, child-child and polygamous marriages.

Every cousin, parent, sibling, paedophile, polygamist or child disallowed marriage could cry the same discrimination argument that homosexuals are now crying. America does discriminate in an attempt to create and maintain a certain society. That society believed all were created equal and given by their creator certain rights of equality, and that clearly includes the right to marry an adult, non related member of the opposite sex, not just "whom you love or want to have sex with".

That notwithstanding, gays are not prevented from engaging and maintaining loving cohabitational relationships with people they love.

[ 04-29-2005, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Melchior ]
__________________
[url]\"http://www.myspace.com/melchiord\" target=\"_blank\">www.myspace.com/melchiord</a>
Melchior is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved