tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post114938619069942017..comments2024-03-13T12:14:28.146-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149858554975220772006-06-09T09:09:00.000-04:002006-06-09T09:09:00.000-04:00Just wanted to say that this is a heart-warmingly ...Just wanted to say that this is a heart-warmingly civil and informative discussion.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149825357114548702006-06-08T23:55:00.000-04:002006-06-08T23:55:00.000-04:00What I don't understand is that in Las Vegas, a ma...What I don't understand is that in Las Vegas, a man and a woman can meet, decide to get married by an Elvis impersonator, and this doesn't endanger the institution, but Harry and Joe, or Linda and Rhoda doing so will send the institution of marriage straight into the compost pile of history.<BR/><BR/>Curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149824105604374682006-06-08T23:35:00.000-04:002006-06-08T23:35:00.000-04:00Thank you also, PiaSharn. I did try to confirm yo...Thank you also, PiaSharn. I did try to confirm your assertions on the history of marriage via the internet, but found little support for the proposition that the institution of gay marriages (including the Romans) were anything but anomalies in human history. Sorry.<BR/><BR/>But that doesn't mean that love as the basis of marriage isn't a newish concept. It is.<BR/><BR/>I have much work to do Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149770472321169552006-06-08T08:41:00.000-04:002006-06-08T08:41:00.000-04:00Thanks for that PiaSharn.It often seems to me that...Thanks for that PiaSharn.<BR/><BR/>It often seems to me that by "traditional" conservatives mean "in the 1950's". It sometimes seems like they think that the world has always been like the '50's up until, well, 1960, when everything went to hell in a handbasket.<BR/><BR/>It's also important to remember (and I also made this point) that things have gotten BETTER as we moved away from traditional Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149739265103787352006-06-08T00:01:00.000-04:002006-06-08T00:01:00.000-04:00"The results of more than a century of anthropolog...<I>"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149557966146812812006-06-05T21:39:00.000-04:002006-06-05T21:39:00.000-04:00As always, ditto, as we Limbaugheans like to say.I...As always, ditto, as we Limbaugheans like to say.<BR/><BR/>I might have got the words wrong in 1), but I thought I got the thought out. Perhaps not. I was particularly interested in your take, as you know far more of Kant than I. I was hoping to trade you some Kant for some Thomas. ;-)<BR/><BR/>(BTW, there was a very interesting discussion [until the nihilist ruined it] of natural law over atTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149553064183952222006-06-05T20:17:00.000-04:002006-06-05T20:17:00.000-04:00Just to pick out a couple of interesting things he...Just to pick out a couple of interesting things here:<BR/><BR/>1. Kant doesn't have a version of the Golden Rule. That's a common misconception. Not to be pedantic, but TGR recommends that we treat other people as we WANT to be treated. The first version of the categorical imperative--which is what people usually confuse with TGR--makes no reference to desires at all. It tells us that a Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149540596592381532006-06-05T16:49:00.000-04:002006-06-05T16:49:00.000-04:00I always understand you, WS, whether you're making...I always understand you, WS, whether you're making any sense or not. :-)<BR/><BR/>I sympathize with the paucity of arguments against gay marriage that would meet your standards, and certainly thumping Leviticus doesn't bring much to the polity.<BR/><BR/>But most reasonable folks who aren't down with gay marriage for reasons not dependent on Divine Command aren't interested in entering the savage Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149512066233214822006-06-05T08:54:00.000-04:002006-06-05T08:54:00.000-04:00Well, I'm approximately as confused about my views...Well, I'm approximately as confused about my views on meta-ethics as you are... So far as I can tell, cultural moral relativism is a non-starter...so id the divine command theory and crude versions of natural law theory, utilitarianism, and Hume. I'm sympathetic to those who say that Aristotle doesn't have a moral theory *per se*, though much of what he says is, of course, sensible and Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149457843871118522006-06-04T17:50:00.000-04:002006-06-04T17:50:00.000-04:00I concede that point to a degree. There will be s...I concede that point to a degree. There will be some who will remain opposed for reasons other than utilitarian ones.<BR/><BR/>But neither is it self-evident that all societal decisions should be left to the social scientists. Neither is it self-evident that social science can unerringly define truth, or "facts." It's a soggy discipline.<BR/><BR/>But my larger point is that society at large Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149454353778254392006-06-04T16:52:00.000-04:002006-06-04T16:52:00.000-04:00If two people want to get married, but one has gre...If two people want to get married, but one has green hair, do they have to prove that marriages including one green-haired person are beneficial to children?<BR/><BR/>Playing burden tennis is not going to help here.<BR/><BR/>Besides, even when there's empirical evidence that same-sex unions are just as good for kids (as there will be), conservatives won't drop their objections at that point.<BR/>Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149451652720814502006-06-04T16:07:00.000-04:002006-06-04T16:07:00.000-04:00Sorry, I think the burden of proof lies on those w...Sorry, I think the burden of proof lies on those who want to overturn what has been an organic evolution of society. I cannot view your proposition as anything but an assertion, and one with which I disagree.<BR/><BR/>An affirmative argument must be made for change. To zero-based budget every societal convention and to shirk all burden of proof for the contrary is a method I reject.<BR/><BR/>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149446524721781992006-06-04T14:42:00.000-04:002006-06-04T14:42:00.000-04:00Actually not.Since there's no reason to think that...Actually not.<BR/><BR/>Since there's no reason to think that the sex of the couple matters, the evidence that male-female pairs are good is also evidence--albeit slightly weaker evidence--that pairs *simpliciter* are good.<BR/><BR/>What the anti-homosexual right has to show is that same-sex parent pairs are BAD.<BR/><BR/>They haven't done that...and they won't be able to b/c they aren't.<BR/><BR/Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149443518632368312006-06-04T13:51:00.000-04:002006-06-04T13:51:00.000-04:00However, ages of experience have also taught us th...<I>However, ages of experience have also taught us that the commitment of two people to love and serve on another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. So far as I know, we don't have any significant reason to believe that there's something magical about the man-woman combination in this regard...we'll need additional evidence. In particular, evidence showing that only Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-1149388018728155872006-06-03T22:26:00.000-04:002006-06-03T22:26:00.000-04:00Postmodernism does seem to lend itself to one very...Postmodernism does seem to lend itself to one very positive thing: political satire. <BR/><BR/>http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/comments/live_from_new_york/<BR/><BR/>(and several other from around the same time.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com