Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:35 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 357 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Malcolm wrote:
Marriage is a govt. sanctioned institution. It confers certain rights onto people who marry (that's why you need a license to do it) to that unmarried people do not enjoy. Since gay people who are in long term committed relationships are denied those same rights as heterosexuals because they are denied the right of marriage, this amounts to civil rights discrimination.


Civil rights discrimination as a problem is entirely a subjective opinion. Your point here doesn't make your argument any more rational.


Quote:
Since you have famously declared you don't believe in "rights" (though why a Canadian monk imagines he will be invited into the elite to help rule the world is beyond anyone's imagination), I imagine that this point will, as it has in the past, fall on deaf ears.


Misrepresentation of me and my statements. I have neither stated I want to gain access to the elite nor do I.


Quote:
Secondly, there is no evidence that heterosexual parents are any better at raising children then gay parents.



It hasn't been widespread long enough to make that judgment call yet.


Quote:
So in the end, your arguments against gay marriage are biased and irrational, which is why they make you a bigot in this respect.


No. I've constantly pointed to the fact a legal precedent is set by virtue of sanctioning gay marriage. This can and will be used by fringe groups which many find presently detestable to further their own goals.

This is neither biased nor irrational.


Quote:
Certainly, you can find a sanctuary safe from gay marriage in Uganda or Kenya where they routinely slaughter people for their gender preference, but I don't think you really want to live in such countries where they will probably mistake you for being gay as well.


As I keep noting, there are plenty of civil and well-developed industrial societies like Japan which have neither gay marriage nor overly liberal social policies, and arguably never will in the foreseeable future.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
mañjughoṣamaṇi wrote:
Why? You've already established you don't believe in "rights"? Or was that just for the non-elect like those uppity feminists, dirty gays, and anyone without your deep understanding of the cosmological order?


I said I don't believe in human rights and equal rights.

That's different from saying I don't believe in any sort of rights at all.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Jeff does not believe in rights for anyone, he stated so a few posts back. He does not even believe that he has "equal rights" or "human rights", even though of course his ability to spew the nonsense he has been spewing lately is possible because he has both.


You are misrepresenting me again.

I said I don't believe in human rights and equal rights.

This is quite different from saying I "do not believe in rights for anyone".

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Marriage is a govt. sanctioned institution. It confers certain rights onto people who marry (that's why you need a license to do it) to that unmarried people do not enjoy. Since gay people who are in long term committed relationships are denied those same rights as heterosexuals because they are denied the right of marriage, this amounts to civil rights discrimination.


Civil rights discrimination as a problem is entirely a subjective opinion. Your point here doesn't make your argument any more rational.




No, it is not "subjective opinion" — it is judicial opinion at this point in many advanced nations.

Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, there is no evidence that heterosexual parents are any better at raising children then gay parents.



It hasn't been widespread long enough to make that judgment call yet.


Sure it has. Gay people have been raising children together forever.


Quote:
No. I've constantly pointed to the fact a legal precedent is set by virtue of sanctioning gay marriage. This can and will be used by fringe groups which many find presently detestable to further their own goals.


Your qualms are irrational: amounting to "If we allow miscegenation, bestiality must be next!" — you have basically placed gay people on a continuum with pedophiles, and that is really offensive.

Quote:
As I keep noting, there are plenty of civil and well-developed industrial societies like Japan which have neither gay marriage nor overly liberal social policies, and arguably never will in the foreseeable future.


I think you will be surprised at how quickly this will change in industrialized nations around the world.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm
Posts: 592
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Jeff does not believe in rights for anyone, he stated so a few posts back. He does not even believe that he has "equal rights" or "human rights", even though of course his ability to spew the nonsense he has been spewing lately is possible because he has both.


Yes, you are right. It is just hard to believe someone as intelligent and as educated as he is would think the way he does. Add to that the fact that he is representing Buddhism and I wish he would just keep his mouth shut. As you, and many others have said, there is no rational basis for the argument so when proven wrong, someone with discernment should be able to put those ideas away pretty quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:26 pm
Posts: 142
Indrajala wrote:
mañjughoṣamaṇi wrote:
Why? You've already established you don't believe in "rights"? Or was that just for the non-elect like those uppity feminists, dirty gays, and anyone without your deep understanding of the cosmological order?


I said I don't believe in human rights and equal rights.

That's different from saying I don't believe in any sort of rights at all.


The notion of free speech rights came from the same strand of thinking that produced the notion of civil rights, human rights, etc. BTW, who gets to decide on these rights in your perfect cosmos?

_________________
སེམས་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བར་བྱའི་ཕྱིར་བྱམས་པ་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱའོ།
“In order to completely liberate the mind, cultivate loving kindness.” -- Maitribhāvana Sūtra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Jeff does not believe in rights for anyone, he stated so a few posts back. He does not even believe that he has "equal rights" or "human rights", even though of course his ability to spew the nonsense he has been spewing lately is possible because he has both.


You are misrepresenting me again.

I said I don't believe in human rights and equal rights.

This is quite different from saying I "do not believe in rights for anyone".


The concept of "rights" was predicated on class rights. That proved ineffective, so now we have human and equal rights. There are no other kinds, except for rights granted by licensure, and those are more akin to privileges rather than rights. You remind me of a Virginia cavalier who famously stated " I love liberty, but I hate equality!".

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Clarence wrote:
Yes, you are right. It is just hard to believe someone as intelligent and as educated as he is would think the way he does. Add to that the fact that he is representing Buddhism and I wish he would just keep his mouth shut. As you, and many others have said, there is no rational basis for the argument so when proven wrong, someone with discernment should be able to put those ideas away pretty quickly.


Ever been to Asia?

Most Asian Buddhists do not support gay marriage, be it Theravada, TB, Chinese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism, etc. There is little to no initiative to change this. Most of what I've stated in this thread would be seen as common sense and justified by most Buddhists around Asia that I know.

In terms of global Buddhism, the liberal opinions on gay marriage presented on this thread are actually quite deviant.

Dislike me all you want, but I'm actually quite orthodox.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Clarence wrote:
Add to that the fact that he is representing Buddhism


He isn't representing Buddhism, he is representing himself. It is important to keep that in mind. The opinions of one junior monk hardly mean anything.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Indrajala wrote:

Dislike me all you want, but I'm actually quite orthodox.


Nonsense, Jeff. A political reactionary? Yes. Are your views "orthodox Buddhism" on this score? No.

Buddhism does not and never has concerned itself with marriage as an institution.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Last edited by Malcolm on Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:26 pm
Posts: 51
Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Jeff does not believe in rights for anyone, he stated so a few posts back. He does not even believe that he has "equal rights" or "human rights", even though of course his ability to spew the nonsense he has been spewing lately is possible because he has both.


You are misrepresenting me again.

I said I don't believe in human rights and equal rights.

This is quite different from saying I "do not believe in rights for anyone".



It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in human rights - as these are not decided by individuals but represent global agreements with State Parties acceding to and being held accountable against a range of International Human Rights Treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. The most basic principle of human rights is that every human being has all of these rights by the simple fact that that they are human beings. Educate yourself on the website of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights: http://www.ohchr.org

And as others have said - it is because you are enjoying universal human rights that you are able to lead the life you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Malcolm wrote:
The concept of "rights" was predicated on class rights. That proved ineffective, so now we have human and equal rights. There are no other kinds, except for rights granted by licensure, and those are more akin to privileges rather than rights. You remind me of a Virginia cavalier who famously stated " I love liberty, but I hate equality!".



The champions for human rights and equal rights (primarily America nowadays) are guilty of atrocities that make Saddam look like a street thug.

In practice your cherished notions of human rights and so on simply don't amount to much.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
palchi wrote:
It is irrelevant whether or not you believe in human rights - as these are not decided by individuals but represent global agreements with State Parties acceding to and being held accountable against a range of International Human Rights Treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.


These don't really matter when it comes to bullies like the US which for decades have been guilty of vast atrocities against women and children.

We need only look at Iraq.




Quote:
And as others have said - it is because you are enjoying universal human rights that you are able to lead the life you do.


Not at all. If I was born a century or two ago I could have been a globe trotting swashbuckler. Quite easily actually, especially before passport controls were implemented.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Indrajala wrote:

In practice your cherished notions of human rights and so on simply don't amount to much.


Sure they do. But in your cynicism, you just don't want to see it.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Indrajala wrote:

Not at all. If I was born a century or two ago I could have been a globe trotting swashbuckler. Quite easily actually, especially before passport controls were implemented.


In reality you probably would have never left your county.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:26 pm
Posts: 142
Indrajala wrote:
The champions for human rights and equal rights (primarily America nowadays) are guilty of atrocities that make Saddam look like a street thug.


Don't you mean "some of those using human rights as a shield for their imperial ambitions"? There are many people who advocate human rights, not, in the vein of your arguments, because they are cosmologically based, but because they believe they provide the best and most reasonable standard of living in a globalized world?

_________________
སེམས་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བར་བྱའི་ཕྱིར་བྱམས་པ་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱའོ།
“In order to completely liberate the mind, cultivate loving kindness.” -- Maitribhāvana Sūtra


Last edited by mañjughoṣamaṇi on Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 5986
Location: Taiwan
Malcolm wrote:
Sure they do. But in your cynicism, you just don't want to see it.


Or perhaps you don't want to admit the failure of your cherished ideology.

_________________
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog) Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog) Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog) Dharma Depository (Site)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:26 pm
Posts: 142
Indrajala wrote:
Not at all. If I was born a century or two ago I could have been a globe trotting swashbuckler. Quite easily actually, especially before passport controls were implemented.


Jeff. You were just bitching about uncontrolled immigration a few pages back. I guess, once again, this does not apply to "the elect".

_________________
སེམས་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བར་བྱའི་ཕྱིར་བྱམས་པ་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱའོ།
“In order to completely liberate the mind, cultivate loving kindness.” -- Maitribhāvana Sūtra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Posts: 633
Buddhism really has no concept of human rights. It´s up to the rulers to define secular law. That does´nt mean Buddha condemns anybody according to social preferences.

_________________
http://www.twitter.com/aigurung


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:19 pm
Posts: 592
Indrajala wrote:
Ever been to Asia?

Quite a bit spread out over the last 13 years. India, Thailand, Tibet, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.

Quote:
Most Asian Buddhists do not support gay marriage, be it Theravada, TB, Chinese Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism, etc. There is little to no initiative to change this. Most of what I've stated in this thread would be seen as common sense and justified by most Buddhists around Asia that I know.

So what. In India, before the British came, gay sex was very normal. Nowadays, they are still as prude as the Victorians. I know a gay Singapore couple whose parents still think they will marry men. So, they live together, but are not out. Truthfully, you sound like those preachers in the U.S. who claim that earthquakes are punishments from above because of people's "bad bad" behavior.
Do you truly think that gender is so clearly delineated in the higher realms? I don't think so and thus, besides the human rights argument, there are definitely multiple Buddhist arguments to be made against your, and many Asian Buddhist, views. Most of which are culturally defined anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 357 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group