The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

Is conflict resolution better than side taking in the dispute on marriage, between tradition and LGBT?

Voting closes: 02/07/2017 10:39:18

Author Topic: Conflict resolution with LGBT and religious on marriage in government?  (Read 542 times)

Offline Europan Ocean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
I think around the world governors have seen opposing sides on a dispute between gay rights and traditional rights mainly Christian. There have been bullying attempts, like attempts at dictation, and theocracy... And governors have taken sides rather than resolving conflict politically, which I say is a mistake. They should be able to make both sides happy, as if directing traffick avoiding collisions.

For example, LGBT can have marriage rights and protections under a duplicate of traditional marriage in the constitution and call it post modern marriage, this takes a little rewording, and the old remains and is titled traditional marriage, or modern marriage. Then there needs to be some ethics and science for matters of adoption, and religious freedoms. Including freedom for street preaching about traditional holiness...

Retaining freedom of speech is crucial for democracy.

Is this a good idea?


 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
We do not live in a democracy, infact the powers that be are rather anti-democracy and both France and America are actully a polyarchy.

Quote
In Western European political science, the term polyarchy (Greek: poly "many", arkhe "rule")[1] was used by Robert Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy.[2] This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and was gradually adopted by many other countries


Freedom of speach is really a non existent right, in a negatively free society, while on paper some might believe they have or should have the right to speak freely, it's actually a positive freedom, which is not as protected as peoples negative freedom of; being free from hearing it. "Street preaching" interferes with all of the negative liberity of all people on the street.

Negative liberity seeks to protect people from intereference, so someone using positive liberity by preaching on the street is interfering with the people walking by and so effecting their negative liberity. Like with smoking to smoke is a positve freedom and being free from smoke is a negative liberity- so smoking gets banned everywhere. Freedom of speach is going the same way.

Ofcourse its a rather ridiculas as the state and security services have no problem interfering with the negative liberity of others and also behind closed doors decide what is and is not an acceptable freedom for the members of said society to have. 

With regards to LGBT marriage, i do not see the issue really, marriage as a legal institution has already been agreed in many countries and that will continue. Are you arguing that Priests should be forced to marry LGBT people, against their will and theology?
       
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4725
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
In a civilised society, everyone should be able to nominate one person who will inherit his/her entire estate without taxation. Beyond that, who does what, with which, and to whom, is nobody else's business.

If people want to have their lives interfered with by a priest, fine, but the state should have no interest in personal relationships beyond registering the chosen inheritor.
 

Offline Europan Ocean

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Alan, do you mean less government of relationships such as in the department of births deaths and marriages?

And do you prefer anarchy?

Jolly, don't you think it is worth maintaining freedom of speech and the right to vote and stand in parliament, if you are a born citizen?

For science, debates with sides and free speech is important!
For policy writing and campaigning once again, it is vital.
If a person can restrain others' speech, he can gain too much power.

The press led by one person, in regards to one company can begin to persuade and monopolize and dictate. Going beyond influencing 5% in close elections. Media magnates can be greedy, conservative, austere, gun ho...

I want my democracy. I want to retain constitutional monarchism.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4725
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Alan, do you mean less government of relationships such as in the department of births deaths and marriages?

And do you prefer anarchy?


I see no point in regulating anything that doesn't need regulating. So I am all for the decriminalisation of anything that doesn't hurt third parties - including sex, drugs, rock'n'roll....and the shape of bananas, for chrissake.

On the other hand I am in favour of the state upholding and protecting the choices we make. So laws of property are a Good Thing, and the privileges of marriage should be available to anyone who is prepared to accept its duties.   


Quote
I want my democracy. I want to retain constitutional monarchism.
Indeed. The best possible system. It is noticeable that the happiest nations are those with a hereditary monarch, paid by a democratic government. We must not allow Britain to go down the Presidential toilet by default - Scot Nats be warned!

I recall walking through a public courtyard in Stockholm and being shown a rather fine office. I was told "the king cycles in, three days a week, to sign military orders, because that is what kings are for."
« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 14:26:42 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Jolly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Jolly, don't you think it is worth maintaining freedom of speech and the right to vote and stand in parliament, if you are a born citizen?


Nice idea but you dont actually have freedom of speach, if you did the state and security services would protect you if you spoke your mind, they certainly do not do that at the moment. Voting for one person to represent you has to be one of the worst forms of democracy, they lie to get in and when they do they go against everything they said they would do, and rarely get called up on it. Right to stand is interesting, politicians are vetted today by the system- no zelots allowed apparently. and really what does it matter to vote when the politicians have no power or ability to really change things, a vote for someone that can really do nothing is a rather worthless vote, and the longer this process goes on the worse it's going to get, from party to party leader to leader no matter who you vote for they all follow the same agenda, an agenda decided by the Market, not the politicians themselves and certianly not by the people.   

I see no point in trying to preserve the status quo, we really have no democracy, or freedom of speach.

For science, debates with sides and free speech is important!
For policy writing and campaigning once again, it is vital.

There are highier powers taking care of that, politicians just manage, for the corporates and bankers, all their advisers work for the bankers and corporates. Important to understand whats happened since Thatcher, she put the business community in charge and put politics on the back seat, we the people at Mc-country can vote to change the manager, but the not the real rulers and decision makers. 


If a person can restrain others' speech, he can gain too much power.

If the people actually understood what was going on, there would be a massive social breakdown, you can and speak, then you'll pay the price, quietly in private- so no one notices. Wake up to what negative freedom as a system really is- it's a control system.

Mass survielence which Britian is the worst at, was going on long before 9/11 and has little to do with terrorism, you can't control a society without it.

The press led by one person, in regards to one company can begin to persuade and monopolize and dictate. Going beyond influencing 5% in close elections. Media magnates can be greedy, conservative, austere, gun ho...

In America five companies now controll all the media, and they colude.

I want my democracy. I want to retain constitutional monarchism.

You do not live in a democracy, the politicians will say you do, but you have to understand when politicians say 'Democracy' they mean that business are in power, not the people have influence over elected officals.
Business rules and you vote for business' when you shop with them, the "Elected" Business then tell the elected politician managers what they want, and their advisers advise, "continous democracy" as it has been called.

We'll ignore how the rich get more votes and how some companies the people never engage with so get no vote over, and how some companies are too big to fail so the people are not allowed to get rid of them even if they wanted to, and how being good at making a product or service really is no qulification for power over society. The closer you look at things the more lies you see, but maintaining illusions is part of the system. 
« Last Edit: 02/06/2016 01:08:55 by Jolly »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums