I read the article. I’ve heard this all before: The Jews have taken over the economy of the world, the Masons have infiltrated all political instiutions and now even the gays have invaded the moral fabric of society.

The fact is that nowadays, irrespective of whether your views are legitimate or not, you have to work hard and present a case so that your opinions earn the respect you think they desserve. What the writer was doing was lamenting over a long-gone period of biased ignorance that once ruled the credulous among us and made misery out of the life of generations of innocent beings.

I diagnose his symptoms as: expressing the painful throes of a defeated and groundless theory that had never had anything to do with the objectiveness and point-of-view invariance that defines the modern scientific process.

I am happy discussing the morality of sexuality within a religious frame work but applying a reigious conviction to a scientific method is to commit the scientific equivalent of blasphemy! If we did we’d have Hindu phsyics, Christian Chemistry and Budhhist biology. We’d still be using spiritual witchcraft to treat infections or mystical ranting to treat cancer.

Keep the non-overlapping majesteria (relgion and sciences) where each belongs.

Salam

I am a bit disappointed at being accused of throwing slogans when all I called for is the equality of human beings with respect to their rights. Do you feel this is a ‘slogan’ that needs an explanation to back it up or can’t you see it as one of the basic principles of morality upon which one builds on when tackling issues of ethics and moral behaviour. I think it is deplorable that I have to justify myself for denouncing prejudice.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists the right to matrimony without restriction to the sex of the spouse. This restriction is but a prejudice imposed by religious belief systems without any reasonable explanation.

I hope you can provide us with one.

As for your questions:
There are no limits to an individual excercising their rights. Rights are there to be excercised and enjoyed. Please remember that breeching other’s rights is not a human right by any standard.

The only type of individual who can be restricted from excercising their rights is the psychiatric patient. The characteristics of such an individual are well defined in medical literature. For an example we may deny them the right to terminate their life as we know that mental disturbances may be treated (sever depression) or controlled (schizophrenia).

Homosexuals belong to neither so none of your questions are stikingly and obbiously relevant to this case unless you want to explain yourself further

My reffernce point is you, the human being. On the other hand the default referrence point of religion is an abstract entity with its own set of conflicting interests. I dont’ see why we should consider it more noble to denounce the rights of the human being for those of a silent and hidden deity. Religous concepts seem to have lost focus of our earthly existence for the sake of a hypotheitcal ‘after life’ for which we have no direct observable evidence whatsoever.

The concept of humanist values on the other hand is an evolving concept but its referrence point is more stable and dare I say more noble: the welfare of the human being. You are welcome to reason your way around the Universal Declaration of Human rights and you may even contribute to shaping our current understanding of morality only if you provide us with a rational reason. So far you have provided no direct argument in favour of prohibiting same sex marriage.

So my ‘slogans’ stem from reasoning while yours come from religious dogma. We may be alike in our passion for what we believe but it ends there. One of us derives his beliefs from ancient scripture and the other derives his principles using reason. I am open to dialogue but you are obliged to always reach one conclusion: Religion is right because it says so.

To answer your questions: No ther is no limit to an individual exercising their rights. It goes without saying that breeching the rights of others is not a ‘right’ one is free to enjoy. If you apply this golden rule everything else falls into place e.g suicide vs euthansia..etc

Yes certain individuals are not usually allowed to make judgment when they lose the mental capacity to make rational decisions. The only situation is that of psychotic derangement. These characteristics are well described in the medical literature. Homosexuality does not belong to that category.

In this case you are neither dealing with an individual incapable of making rational decisions nor seeking to ‘limit’ their exercising of a right that you may consider legitmate when not abused in excess. You are seeking to categorically abolish one of their rights.

It’s odd that you can be so absolute while not recognising the huge potential for people to disagree on what “rights” actually consist of. I would agree that there is a right and wrong on the matter, but for me the reference point would be what God has revealed, and what can be derived from that. What can you pin your absolutist values on?

You are not using reason. You are just throwing slogans. At least I can analyse my own discourse to show where it overlaps with others and where we will have trouble communicating. It’s all very well to call me a dogmatist, but have you ever looked in the philosophical mirror?

See if you can answer these questions, and if you can, then perhaps we can talk further:
1. Are there any limits to an individual exercising his/her rights?
2. Are there any innate characteristics of an individual that would not come under the banner of “right to exercise”?

So your belief system gives you the right to override certain moral values at its own discretion. Fine, but if your belief system could back this up by some reasonable argument life would be so much easier for everyone.

I propose that all humans are equal and marriage should not be restricted to sexual preferrence. Are you capable of applying reason to contest that or would you prefer to seek sanctuary in religion? I am sure you would prefer the latter as nothing can silence reason like religious dogma can.

I wonder why you’re trying to portray me as “angry and frustrated” to live in my country. Maybe you’d like me to sound like a terrorist? No, I am a Muslim. I know that the moral guidance of divine revelation is the right way to live, but I understand very well the need for living in tolerance. Tolerance, however, does not change the moral facts. Neither does time.