A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

No, but all three of those things are organised by and around principles.

No, a state is not created around a principle, and it surely isn't organised by principles,  not in the way that you portray them. They are created from ideas with the praxis in mind. Not from the purely theoretical thing.  A principle is a fundamental truth which serves as the foundation for a system. It is an unchangable truth. A state however is an organic structure which evolves based on the social, economical and political circumstances. Herein the political aspect is the only one that is governed by principles, the social and the economical are not. They evolve by theirselves with a dialectic process existing between all three of them. 

The social aspect is not governed by principles because it evolves mostly in an informal way, by the news it receives from the media, the interpersonal communication and the circumstances in which the people live. The people themselves will not create thorough systems of thought based around their actions, they just act according to what they deem right. This means that they can easily act in contradictions. This is because of their informal nature.

The economical aspect is not governed by principles of the state or moral principles, but by the need for self preservation and the assimilation of goods. This aspect does not need principles to function, it is merely a theoretical aspect, something which has one function and one function only; profit. It is only because it has an influence on the social aspect that the state will create laws for it. 

The state does not evolve because of principles, it evolves because of the social and economical aspects which influence the politics. The politics is only the last step, it creates the laws according to what the public needs and what the economy needs. If they do not do this by A. Not listening to the social aspect, or B. Asking too much from the Economical aspect, then the system will fall apart. Eventually the world does not run on principles, it runs on the social aspect which is an informal aspect without any consistent principles, and the economic aspect which is only based on self-preservation. The political aspect will try to find a way to mediate between the two and will try to perserve itself by doing so.

On the contrary. Real life is indeed based around principles, and the actions we take and do not take on the basis of them. Certainly, while not every single action we take is based on principles, the law should be. That is why we have institutions like parliaments/congresses etc. To discuss them.

Like I said, laws should be created to follow the social and economical aspects, not through purely theoretical speculation.

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

No, a state is not created around a principle, and it surely isn't organised by principles,  not in the way that you portray them. They are created from ideas with the praxis in mind. Not from the purely theoretical thing.  A principle is a fundamental truth which serves as the foundation for a system. It is an unchangable truth.

Yes, like Liberte, Egalitae, Fraternity etc.

A state however is an organic structure which evolves based on the social, economical and political circumstances. Herein the political aspect is the only one that is governed by principles, the social and the economical are not. They evolve by theirselves with a dialectic process existing between all three of them.

 

You are fluctuating what you mean by "the state". The political aspect, by its nature, has significent governing and controling influence over the social and economical aspects of the state. Not complete control, obviously, but very significent. In this case, since we are talking about whether or not the state should recognise something, it is the political system we are talking about.

The social aspect is not governed by principles because it evolves mostly in an informal way, by the news it receives from the media, the interpersonal communication and the circumstances in which the people live. The people themselves will not create thorough systems of thought based around their actions, they just act according to what they deem right. This means that they can easily act in contradictions. This is because of their informal nature.

They can, but that in itself will make society less fair. People should be encourage to act without contradictions, to make the world fairer. Furthermore, as I have said, in this instance, we're not talking about the social world. We are talking about the government's response to the social world.

The economical aspect is not governed by principles of the state or moral principles, but by the need for self preservation and the assimilation of goods. This aspect does not need principles to function, it is merely a theoretical aspect, something which has one function and one function only; profit. It is only because it has an influence on the social aspect that the state will create laws for it.

 

On the contrary, the economic world does need principles to function. While it can still function without them, it will ultimately become self destructive and damage the lives of others.

 

The state does not evolve because of principles, it evolves because of the social and economical aspects which influence the politics. The politics is only the last step, it creates the laws according to what the public needs and what the economy needs.

What you are suggesting is very dangerous. It's essentially mob rule. If you allow the state to be controlled by the will of the people in the manner you are suggesting, without considerations for things like principles, like fairness etc, then the system has the potential for massive and dangerous abuse. This is why we have things like constitutions and checks and balances and international human rights agreements. They are there to control the state and limit its power. But the state isn't the only one to be governed by these principles. Individuals should do so as well.

Like I said, laws should be created to follow the social and economical aspects, not through purely theoretical speculation.

It is not a matter of theoretical speculation, it is a matter of logical extrapolation.

Follow your logic through to conclusion. Using your pattern of belief it's perfectly okay to impose religion on a populus, so long as there are lots of people who believe it. Never mind that it would involve invading people's private lives. Never mind that it would involve violating all kinds of civil libertites. As long as it's what lots of people want, the political aspect of the state must conform to the social aspect of the state.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Yes, like Liberte, Egalitae, Fraternity etc.

Firstly it's liberté, égalité, fraternité; or in English liberty, egality, fraternity. And secondly, I will admit that this is a principle, but this supra-individual ficition is not the reason why we had the french revolution. The french revolution was a reaction on a bad political system. The people suffered and revolted, not because of a principle but because of bodily needs and the emotion of being treated wrongly. It was only after they had won that they translated the "will and emotions of the people" into concrete principles and laws, and thereby created a new political system.

You are fluctuating what you mean by "the state". The political aspect, by its nature, has significent governing and controling influence over the social and economical aspects of the state. Not complete control, obviously, but very significent. In this case, since we are talking about whether or not the state should recognise something, it is the political system we are talking about.
&

They can, but that in itself will make society less fair. People should be encourage to act without contradictions, to make the world fairer. Furthermore, as I have said, in this instance, we're not talking about the social world. We are talking about the government's response to the social world.

If change starts with the people and works it's way up to politics, then we shouldn't discuss politics but people. We shouldn't discuss those who need to create the concrete laws, but those because of whom the laws need to be made. If the people are the fundamental force which creates change, then we should look at the people to know if homosexual marriage should be legal.

On the contrary, the economic world does need principles to function. While it can still function without them, it will ultimately become self destructive and damage the lives of others.

And when it does, the social aspect will react and there will come laws to prevent it from happening again. The principles in the economy are laws given by the state.

What you are suggesting is very dangerous. It's essentially mob rule. If you allow the state to be controlled by the will of the people in the manner you are suggesting, without considerations for things like principles, like fairness etc, then the system has the potential for massive and dangerous abuse. This is why we have things like constitutions and checks and balances and international human rights agreements. They are there to control the state and limit its power. But the state isn't the only one to be governed by these principles. Individuals should do so as well.

That's not what I say, I in no way say that there'll be a mob rule, I just say that the things like fairness which you view as principles are only values given by the social aspect, and which the political aspect has to take in consideration when making decisions. Our western world has evolved, on a social level, to see fairness as a important part of society. And the politics has to take that in consideration.

It is not a matter of theoretical speculation, it is a matter of logical extrapolation.

Principles are fundamental truths for systems in life, in the same way as axioms are fundamental truths for mathematical systems. These fundamental truths are by their nature impossible to prove or disprove, (because there is nothing more fundamental on which you can base yourself to prove them, other than a metaphysical truth or diety) rendering any debate about them speculation. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I will admit that this is a principle, but this supra-individual ficition is not the reason why we had the french revolution. The french revolution was a reaction on a bad political system. The people suffered and revolted, not because of a principle but because of bodily needs and the emotion of being treated wrongly. It was only after they had won that they translated the "will and emotions of the people" into concrete principles and laws, and thereby created a new political system.

 

But follow it through. The result of the failure to implement the principle was a real world problem (IE the failure of the French Monarchy to adequately provide for its people). Principles, when followed, have real world consequences, the same way as when they are not followed, they also have real world consequences.

If change starts with the people and works it's way up to politics, then we shouldn't discuss politics but people. We shouldn't discuss those who need to create the concrete laws, but those because of whom the laws need to be made. If the people are the fundamental force which creates change, then we should look at the people to know if homosexual marriage should be legal.

 

The problem is that very often the people arn't where the fundamental change starts. Look, for example, at slavery. Slavery was not banned because of popular support, it was banned because of a few courageous representatives in Parliament, and a small number of individuals who supported them. Change happens both by big groundswell movements, and by action from the top. But in both cases, they are following principles, arguing that their change should happen, not just because they want it to happen, but because it is wrong that it does not happen.

And when it does, the social aspect will react and there will come laws to prevent it from happening again. The principles in the economy are laws given by the state.

Principles derived from truth.

That's not what I say, I in no way say that there'll be a mob rule, I just say that the things like fairness which you view as principles are only values given by the social aspect, and which the political aspect has to take in consideration when making decisions. Our western world has evolved, on a social level, to see fairness as a important part of society. And the politics has to take that in consideration.

 

Fairness isn't simply a cultural phonomenon. It is something that runs deeper than that. If it were just a culutral phonomenon, had our culutre evolved differntly, the outlawing of gay marriage (for example) would be perfectly acceptable. If you follow your model, what is happening right now is just that. Both sides of the debate are trying to make our culture evolve, in their opinion's direction. Your attitude is dangerous because it has a basic endpoint of "whoever wins is right".

Principles are fundamental truths for systems in life, in the same way as axioms are fundamental truths for mathematical systems. These fundamental truths are by their nature impossible to prove or disprove, (because there is nothing more fundamental on which you can base yourself to prove them, other than a metaphysical truth or diety) rendering any debate about them speculation.

 

Disagree. We have truths that we accept, and we can extrapolate from them. These truths are those that allow maximum possible flexibility in many areas, but ultimately they have to stop things somewhere. Your logic allows (dangerously) for whoever succeeds in gaining cultural dominance to be "right" thereby making morality a numbers game.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

But follow it through. The result of the failure to implement the principle was a real world problem (IE the failure of the French Monarchy to adequately provide for its people). Principles, when followed, have real world consequences, the same way as when they are not followed, they also have real world consequences.
Yes, but only if there are principles in the form of rational truths. In this case principles are only rationalisations of human actions and emotions. They are words that describe their actions, not words that make them act. In this case there was no wrong implementation of a principle, simply because there was no principle, only a fiction wherein his/her actions had a higher meaning than what it would seem to be in reality.

The problem is that very often the people arn't where the fundamental change starts. Look, for example, at slavery. Slavery was not banned because of popular support, it was banned because of a few courageous representatives in Parliament, and a small number of individuals who supported them. Change happens both by big groundswell movements, and by action from the top. But in both cases, they are following principles, arguing that their change should happen, not just because they want it to happen, but because it is wrong that it does not happen.

It was banned because of empathy, a normal human emotion. Not because of a higher moral principle. The moral principle is just a supra-individual fiction, a rationalisation of ones actions and feelings.

Fairness isn't simply a cultural phonomenon. It is something that runs deeper than that. If it were just a culutral phonomenon, had our culutre evolved differntly, the outlawing of gay marriage (for example) would be perfectly acceptable. If you follow your model, what is happening right now is just that. Both sides of the debate are trying to make our culture evolve, in their opinion's direction. Your attitude is dangerous because it has a basic endpoint of "whoever wins is right".

Yes, fairness is something biological too, and this biological need shows in our interpersonal interactions. The problem with your thinking is that you deny any way possible correct moral system, while also not stating any other options yourself. I simply want to state that the two most viable methods to find a good and right moral system are democratic or dialectic. The first one is the idea that the majority is right, the second one is that we get more insight into morality through a dialectic process and that we will eventually find a synthesis.

Disagree. We have truths that we accept, and we can extrapolate from them. These truths are those that allow maximum possible flexibility in many areas, but ultimately they have to stop things somewhere. Your logic allows (dangerously) for whoever succeeds in gaining cultural dominance to be "right" thereby making morality a numbers game.

which truths might that be? Just because the logic is dangerous does not mean it's wrong. Epistemologically you can only be sure of the existence of space and time. No more. (according to Kant's Critique of pure reason) He himself uses a transcendental diety to make a ethical system of principles, because he also realized that you need a higher truth (metaphysical entity) to create a system which can be viewed as correct. Now however we say that a metaphysical entity can be neither proven nor disproven, and should therefore not be used as a principle to create a moral system on.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes, but only if there are principles in the form of rational truths. In this case principles are only rationalisations of human actions and emotions. They are words that describe their actions, not words that make them act. In this case there was no wrong implementation of a principle, simply because there was no principle, only a fiction wherein his/her actions had a higher meaning than what it would seem to be in reality.

The principles ARE rational truths. Things like freedom of speech etc are rationally derived from core principles and values.

It was banned because of empathy, a normal human emotion. Not because of a higher moral principle. The moral principle is just a supra-individual fiction, a rationalisation of ones actions and feelings.

It was banned because of a principle. If it was to do with empathy, it would never have happened in the first place. Following your logic through leaves us too dependent on emotions, which don't work. If it was about empathy, why did the slave ship captains even do any of the evil things they did? Why did they suddenly have a complete lack of empathy for the Africans? The answer is that were misapplying princoples and had misplaced values. IE they valued their own financial wellbeing above that of the African's well being. The change was fundimentally one of principle.

Yes, fairness is something biological too, and this biological need shows in our interpersonal interactions. The problem with your thinking is that you deny any way possible correct moral system, while also not stating any other options yourself. I simply want to state that the two most viable methods to find a good and right moral system are democratic or dialectic. The first one is the idea that the majority is right, the second one is that we get more insight into morality through a dialectic process and that we will eventually find a synthesis.

 

The problem is that 1. Majorities can be wrong 2. Dialectics ultimately have to be based upon principles.

which truths might that be? Just because the logic is dangerous does not mean it's wrong.

 

It does if it is trying to advocate for the best possible case scenerio for human interaction

 

Epistemologically you can only be sure of the existence of space and time. No more. (according to Kant's Critique of pure reason) He himself uses a transcendental diety to make a ethical system of principles, because he also realized that you need a higher truth (metaphysical entity) to create a system which can be viewed as correct. Now however we say that a metaphysical entity can be neither proven nor disproven, and should therefore not be used as a principle to create a moral system on.

 

The fact is we make choices. We choose truths. Where the truths are found to be failing, we re-examine. But the principles must be consistent. They cannot be inconsistent, or we are not producing truths. One such principle is the golden rule, do unto others as you would do unto you. In this case, (going back to the discussion of gay marriage) it makes a good deal of sense. Pro-gay marriage lobbiests should accept that that which they wish to be done to them will want to be done to others. They can't simply say "we've got what we wanted, we're happy" because to do so is to be inconsistant.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

It was banned because of a principle. If it was to do with empathy, it would never have happened in the first place. Following your logic through leaves us too dependent on emotions, which don't work. If it was about empathy, why did the slave ship captains even do any of the evil things they did? Why did they suddenly have a complete lack of empathy for the Africans? The answer is that were misapplying princoples and had misplaced values. IE they valued their own financial wellbeing above that of the African's well being. The change was fundimentally one of principle.

Individuals differ from eachother, each person has a different opinion, and all opinions are important in the interpersonal interactions. The slave captains had a different opinion, they saw the slaves as unevolved human beings, they saw the western world as the "right civilization", the superior one.

The fact is we make choices. We choose truths. Where the truths are found to be failing, we re-examine. But the principles must be consistent. They cannot be inconsistent, or we are not producing truths. One such principle is the golden rule, do unto others as you would do unto you. In this case, (going back to the discussion of gay marriage) it makes a good deal of sense. Pro-gay marriage lobbiests should accept that that which they wish to be done to them will want to be done to others. They can't simply say "we've got what we wanted, we're happy" because to do so is to be inconsistant.

Because everything seems to revolve around the validity of principles: If you create a system it has to rely on truth, and truth is not something we choose, nor is truth something that can fail, truth it something we observe or deduce. Truth is an absolute. By following your reasoning we could create an entire system of thought, and aslong as it's consistent with the first principle it should be viewed at as truth, but if that principle isn't based on reality, than your system is not truth, it is just a structure which functiones inside certain parameters, not the reality. To create a system based on reality is however very difficult and I dare say impossible.

"Do unto others as you would do unto you" seems to be a bad example, it functions on the basic premise that all humans want the same thing. A massochist who wants to be abused should not abuse others, even if, by extending this principle, it would say so. In reality competely correct systems of truth are impossible to create, simply because it is too complicated, there are too many variables. And too little fundamental truths on which to build them. As I said before, the only things we can know for sure are space and time. Try creating a system of principles based on that.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Individuals differ from eachother, each person has a different opinion, and all opinions are important in the interpersonal interactions. The slave captains had a different opinion, they saw the slaves as unevolved human beings, they saw the western world as the "right civilization", the superior one.

Yes, Opinions. NOT feelings, which is what you talked about before. Opinions are based on principles and values. What a person values. What principles they employ. Feelings are different. Less permanent, more transient. The slave trade was defeated because of values like those of William Wilberforce, not by empathy.

Because everything seems to revolve around the validity of principles: If you create a system it has to rely on truth, and truth is not something we choose, nor is truth something that can fail, truth it something we observe or deduce. Truth is an absolute. By following your reasoning we could create an entire system of thought, and aslong as it's consistent with the first principle it should be viewed at as truth, but if that principle isn't based on reality, than your system is not truth, it is just a structure which functiones inside certain parameters, not the reality. To create a system based on reality is however very difficult and I dare say impossible.

All of human experience is an effort to discover those truth, and those principles upon which we should govern ourselves. We try systems, we do our best to make sure that they are sound as is humanly possible.

"Do unto others as you would do unto you" seems to be a bad example, it functions on the basic premise that all humans want the same thing. A massochist who wants to be abused should not abuse others, even if, by extending this principle, it would say so. In reality competely correct systems of truth are impossible to create, simply because it is too complicated, there are too many variables. And too little fundamental truths on which to build them. As I said before, the only things we can know for sure are space and time. Try creating a system of principles based on that.

We may not be able to get there exactly, but we can try, and continue trying. And we get closer all the time. Simply abandoning it and not trying is, frankly, cowardly. We have to keep trying, and one of the things we have discovered that is important is consistency.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

All of human experience is an effort to discover those truth, and those principles upon which we should govern ourselves. We try systems, we do our best to make sure that they are sound as is humanly possible.

That is idealistic, but true. I however question our ability to create a system which is always able to take in account the complexity of human interaction and emotion. Most humans are irrational beings, I think that a system which handles with this human behaviour should therefore have some sort of flexibility. Because when making a system we shouldn't forget the nature of what were making a system about; an irrational and complex creature.

We may not be able to get there exactly, but we can try, and continue trying. And we get closer all the time. Simply abandoning it and not trying is, frankly, cowardly. We have to keep trying, and one of the things we have discovered that is important is consistency.

Yes, but consistency is not everything, consistency without truth, and which is not based on truth will have no value to us. So how should we in the meantime resolve the question of "should same-sex be allowed?" something which cannot (yet) be deduced from the fundamental truths we know. Who should,and how should we, decide that?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

That is idealistic, but true. I however question our ability to create a system which is always able to take in account the complexity of human interaction and emotion. Most humans are irrational beings, I think that a system which handles with this human behaviour should therefore have some sort of flexibility. Because when making a system we shouldn't forget the nature of what were making a system about; an irrational and complex creature.

I think what we've discovered is that we want justice. We want fairness, we want to be treated equally which means that when we apply principles, we must do so with a strong degree of impartiality.

Yes, but consistency is not everything, consistency without truth, and which is not based on truth will have no value to us. So how should we in the meantime resolve the question of "should same-sex be allowed?" something which cannot (yet) be deduced from the fundamental truths we know. Who should,and how should we, decide that?

We use the system of truths we are currently using. If we randomly change, we shan't be able to complete the test.

[Aaron, The dapper |Mod of rum|]

Because it's my birthday today I won't be responding to the debate. But I'll continue tomorrow. You are a lovely person, live long and prosper.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Glad to see your opinion has changed :-)

It's been good debating you too. Have a great day tomorrow.