Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Twelve

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

1. A question to consider as you think about the same-sex marriage debate: is it possible to decide what the law should be without entering into moral and religious controversies about the moral status of homosexuality and the purpose of marriage?

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (180)

(Anshel) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 1:31 pm

A big thank you to Michael Sandel, to the students and to Harvard for shearing this. I've enjoyed following you!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 9:15 am

I think you mean 'sharing this'. Sheep shearing, shearing or clipping is the process by which the woollen fleece of a sheep is cut off. The person who removes the sheep's wool is called a shearer. Even I know this and I am only 13 with a mere IQ of 160.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 5:19 pm

Wow. 13, an IQ of 160, and a complete inability to show respect or understanding for another human being. Typos happen. Mistakes happen. Please try not to cry the next time you catch yourself in an error.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 3:40 pm

This guy with the IQ of 160 clearly hasn't understood anything about moral philosophy! Keep up the good work, I hope everything works out well for you!

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 7, December 2009, 12:22 am

Hey, little mr/ms 160

1. Shearing is also the lateral internal deformation of a material.

2. I understood what he meant and my IQ is, like, way lower than yours - are you sure you measured right?

3. If you go around pointing out other people's mistakes to make yourself feel better, none of the other boys and girls will ever want to shear their sheep with you.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 10:35 pm

I agree. I was sorry to see this program end. There are so many more issues that I would have enjoyed having Prof. Sandel discuss. What a great experience.

Thank you to everyone involved in making this series available.

Kathi

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 9:14 pm

Grace, folks; grace! That's the point; he's 13! Stop beating him up and gracefully guide him in the ways of good community!

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 20, January 2010, 1:33 am

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss (dish) people." - Lawrence Peter

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 7, March 2010, 8:07 pm

it's really cofusing.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 8, March 2010, 9:15 pm

很好喜欢

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, March 2010, 9:42 am

Justice: The 13 yo boy or girl is correct. Even if Sandel was an old and venerable god, the 13 yo girl or boy remains correct. Even none of the other boys and girls will ever want to shear their sheep with her or him, she or he remains correct. Even if my English is poor and my qi do not deserve the use of capital letters, the boy or girl remains correct. Let us share this !

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 8:34 pm

thank you

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 11:38 pm

i am going to be crazy!why,why i can't see the vidio?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, March 2010, 11:30 pm

i am going to be crazy!why,why i can't see the vidio?

______你用的是谷歌浏览器？

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 25, March 2010, 9:36 pm

me too..

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, March 2010, 7:25 am

agree

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, April 2010, 8:14 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, July 2010, 9:05 pm

why i can't see vidios?

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 14, July 2010, 8:53 am

may i ask you why couldnot i can see de epicode?i am a asian student

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 11, September 2010, 9:52 am

very good

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 19, September 2010, 1:01 am

good

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 20, October 2010, 3:52 am

저도 그렇게 생각합니다!
Me too!

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, October 2010, 7:36 am

恩我也是

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, November 2010, 6:47 am

I really agree with this .Because of the choice I have made to learn philosophy in Suchow University ,China ,I once beliveved that I would never like it.But this lessons give me the new understanding of my major.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 8:57 pm

I think the class has missed the purpose of the government not recognizing marriage. It is not to avoid taking a stand or to be "neutral", It's the right thing to do. The argument is that it is immoral for the government to recognize marriage.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 1:11 pm

If it is wrong for government to recognize marriage then they would also absolve themselves of all underlying responsibilities such as Divorce.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 8:52 pm

I replied to you because being a geezer have I have not totalled mastered this new technology.
I think what most people don't realize is that marriage is a state run institution. You have to get a licence from the state in order to get married and certain people are allowed to perform the ceremony. If it was solely a religious institution then Justices of the Peace and Marriage Commisioners or Captains at sea would not be able to marry people. Therefore the whole religious argument should be taken out of the equation, especially if a country states that it beleives in a separation of church and state and that all are created equal with right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does it not bother anyone that straight child molesters, spouse abusers and serial killers can get married while law-abiding (tax paying)homosexuals cannot? Or are you willing to give them a discount on their income tax because they are not considered to be full-fledged citizens?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 9:15 pm

S. Tulbya, High School Student.

I have a proposition which may seem a bit odd, but could solve some question. If here is the problem of a marriage certificate, we can easily consider a different certificate for same-sex marriage, stamped, same-sex. Different protections for these marriages would apply than for Normal marriage, and would help define the differences in these two very different views on marriage. This could keep the legal protections we have for original marriage and set new terms for a polygamy or homsoexual-recognizing document. The level of recognition these would recieve at various institutions, would be decided by the instititution , just like the case pertaining to white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, or the Dartmouth College v. Woodward case of 1819. Private institutions would either recognize or not recognize these various contracts.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, December 2009, 1:12 am

S. Tulbya

I do not think it biased to have two different marriage certificates. But, if You want to put it that way, it's as simple as this: You are allowing, with these different certificates. You are definitely allowing, because they will get married. You are simply representing both sides of the argument, in one document. To be sure, there is no middle ground. Of Course, how can You take a middle ground? But this is not a public opinion forum, we are talking in terms of the court here, You SHOULD take a middle ground. Why? Because you represent the supreme justice of the united States of America, and you are not in behalf of one side, nor another, you must create cases of opinion to be unbiased, meaning, take both sides, and at the same time taking no side. You are representing, justice: The cold, hard hammer. People of the opinion that gay marriage should be legalized want a favor, just like the Spoils system. Serving the Party, not the country, is what they want. People who don't want gay marriage legalized want their own systems to the pushed into the Law. Well, both are partisanships. My Proposition opposes both! My proposition serves justice, it serves the court, and it serves America.

Kant would agree with this because I am proposing it for the purpose of justice, not to serve any interest, and under any inclination!

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 8:07 am

the problem is not that people will act as they choose in as far as a same sex marriage is concerned. There are state justices that will reject inter racial marriages. some churches that will not endorse inter faith marriages. People will act as they choose. The question then becomes do we allow our personal opinions to dictate to another person what is right and what is wrong? By equal but opposite doctrinization on a legally binding document. Causes the document to be more religious in nature than is warranted in this country. Most people would be appalled if a law were passed that required every person to sit on a rug every morning and bow to the east. (because that clearly demonstrates forcefully religious adherence) Saying that only one man and one woman is a marriage is also similarlly forceful religious adherence. Our forefathers were intelligent enough to realize they did not hold all the answers to all the questions of government. They installed a system of checks and balances so that their grandchildren might correct what they failed to do so in their lifetime. I would also like to note that Britain, Germany, and Canada all recognize same-sex marriages, and most recently Mexico. How can Americas allies find this such an easy transition from religious governmenting to nonreligious governmenting, and America still struggling with it?

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 8:59 pm

Must I wake You to the fact: Personal Opinions pretty much make up right and wrong. We are striving in court, to represent justice without any inclination toward personal opinion but only towards the constitution.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 2:55 am

I'm replying to "geezer" since he has no reply button-excuse me. "Geezer" ,sir , you are exactly right. It seems they only put reply buttons under the extreme conservative opinions- I could be wrong. Way to tell them sir!

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, April 2010, 12:18 pm

To one geezer from another and to "unregistered": it appears that only the "parent" comments have the reply button. My comment which is a "reply" to S. Tulbya will not, I am guessing, have a reply button.

Geezer2

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 27, August 2010, 2:19 pm

This seems like a very reasonable solution - a compromise of sorts. But then again, I for one am not willing to compromise on this issue. I'm not homosexual, nor do I actually know any homosexuals on a personal basis, but I am so strongly in favour of gay marriage. We cannot disapprove of Apartheid when here we are, discriminating hugely against someone because THEY HAVE FALLEN IN LOVE WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE A PENIS.

Ahah, sorry I felt the need to ake that all out. It's still discrimination, in my opinion, to have a person's romantic preferences matter in, say, getting a job.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 9:15 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 11:10 am

By labelling the certificates as "different" you open the door to discrimination. That's not a solution, that's an apartheid.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 8:44 pm

S. Tulbya,

I understand that civil unions or a different certificate for same-sex marriage might seem like a perfect end-all to the controversies surrounding same-sex marriage, but one thing to keep in mind is that separate doesn't necessarily mean equal. If you are positing the idea that the different marriage certificate would grant the same rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples, lest you not forget that calling the institution of same-sex marriage/unions something different, whilst retaining the same protections under the law, leaves room for social inequality. I have to agree with the other individual who replied to your post and project that labeling the certificates as different (or "stamping" them to say same-sex) creates inequality from the get-go and doesn't achieve the idea of equality and fairness that one would be trying to accomplish with those certificates. In sum, separate isn't equal. It would simply be a much more dignified means of discrimination.

C. Weaver, University of South Florida - St. Petersburg

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, December 2009, 11:36 pm

I am not sure if I agree that labeling a same-sex marriage contract as same-sex discriminates against same sex. It is different, because the two types of marriages are different. you are, in fact, recognizing the differences. Also, I do not agree that it is a controversy over whether these two marriages are equal, but whether they are received in the legal processes that come up at court. meaning, if people want to discriminate against same-sex marriage, they may well do so, You cannot stop them. But this document I propose would simply create an entire new format for same-sex marriage.

Also, I do believe that separation is equal, in most ways. For example, the differences between the ACT or SAT. Lets say standard marriage is the SAT and Homosexual or polygamist is the ACT or another variant. Well, the SAT and ACT are usually received equally at most universities, but it doesn't mean they have to be received equally. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY? This implies that You would have freedom on both sides what to accept and not accept. If I have a corporation and I am OPPOSED to same-sex marriage then I should have the right, in my own way, to not accept a same-sex marriage certificate for some position that may prove sensitive to that subject. you would still be treating them as an end, and you wouldn't be acting under inclination. So in effect, You would be right, because you have the right.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 23, December 2009, 9:38 pm

i am sorry, but that creates the exact problem the courts are trying to avoid. either you have no bias and allow, or you do and you don't. there is no middle ground here.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, December 2009, 2:20 am

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, December 2009, 2:20 am

I do not think it biased to have two different marriage certificates. But, if You want to put it that way, it's as simple as this: You are allowing, with these different certificates. You are definitely allowing, because they will get married. You are simply representing both sides of the argument, in one document. To be sure, there is no middle ground. Of Course, how can You take a middle ground? But this is not a public opinion forum, we are talking in terms of the court here, You SHOULD take a middle ground. Why? Because you represent the supreme justice of the united States of America, and you are not in behalf of one side, nor another, you must create cases of opinion to be unbiased, meaning, take both sides, and at the same time taking no side. You are representing, justice: The cold, hard hammer. People of the opinion that gay marriage should be legalized want a favor, just like the Spoils system. Serving the Party, not the country, is what they want. People who don't want gay marriage legalized want their own systems to the pushed into the Law. Well, both are partisanships. My Proposition opposes both! My proposition serves justice, it serves the court, and it serves America.

Kant would agree with this because I am proposing it for the purpose of justice, not to serve any interest, and under any inclination!

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 11:47 pm

Friday, Dec. 4/09 G.Kessler, Swampscott
In every modern society, open to travel and new thought, there will still remain fragments of rigid thinking. In your last lecture (12) on the discussion of marriage, several students mentioned that it should be limited to a man and a woman. This ancient concept was started by the chuch as a way of reinvigorating it's membership religious stock and continuing the vitality of the relious group. What should we say to the adherants of this concept about a man and woman who marry at an age beyond their ability to procreate. Or the marriage of a man and a woman where one is wounded in war or by accident and who cannot procreate? Is this an invalid marriage in the eyes of Christianity? There are so many reasons for having many "styles" of marriage (other than to solely have children) that the "Christian" concept of marriage being reserved to solely between a man a woman is not only ancient but out of date and self serving. And while it may serve the Christian religion, it does not serve society at large.
reply

(Gary Peterson) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 12:39 pm

I think that society at large is served by this ideal of marriage the same way the church institution intended it-to reinvigorate the membership of society and continue the vitality of it as a whole. But, as discussed in the debate, is there more to marriage than this procreation aspect? Certainly society would cease to exist in one generation if we banned procreation and eliminated any future generation. But the idea of continuing to sanction marriage is not only about the recognition and validation of the union. It is about the methodology of that recognition through tax incentives or penalties, as well as the libertarian view of personal ownership. If my tax dollars are taken to support something I oppose, then I am being forced to provide something that I am opposed to, and am deprived of my right to oppose that thing. If a religious marriage ceremony is desired, those who meet the criteria for that ceremony may partake in it. However, government recognition of marriage exists solely for the government to tax, monitor, and control its constituents. Remove the tax laws based on marriage and there is no need for government endorsement at all.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, March 2010, 8:46 am

Andrew from Boston

I object to your statement, as it's founded on several faulty assumptions:
1. Please specify which area of Christian doctrine states that marriage's purpose is for breeding.
2. Please state the benefits to society for redefining marriage (not "allowing" relationships, encouraging adoption, or granting tax benefits- redefining marriage)
3. Please explain why marriage between a man and woman is out of date and self serving. For example, if this concept is self serving, what benefit do people who feel this way derive?

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 6:14 am

This is a great series. Thank you Harvard for sharing this! (though we have to thank MIT for starting this tide of opencourseware-like content sharing).

With love from Singapore
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 10:15 am

我靠你

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 10:51 am

I honestly don't intend this post to be snarky, but I'm very disappointed by the content and style of the students' responses. The points brought up by the Harvard students could have easily been made verbatim by students from the modest little community college where I'm a Physics/ Math faculty member! Arguments based upon religious or spiritual beliefs and personal feelings don't belong in a general discussion on legal policy. Anyone who made general arguments based on personal beliefs and/or feelings would immediately lose credibility among the Physics and Math majors who were my peers in the so-called third and second tier colleges that I attended.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 11:36 am

Dear Snark, You say that you are very disappointed by the content and style of the Harvard students responses. Thats ok, its your personal disappointment. However, when you go on to say that the modest community college students would easily give verbatim points, you are screaming that your students are expected by you to give inferior responses to the Harvard kids. Shame on you snark! Teacher expectations effect student performance.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 11:59 am

With your new insight, you have a great opportunity to go to your modest college students and assist them to respond with points as valid as those presented by the Harvard kids. Your expectations of them are new and fresh. Congratulations!

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 5:16 pm

I think you miss the point entirely of the structure of the reasoning proposed by Sandel, and that personal conviction is essential to considerations of justice and the social good.

I teach at a community college, too--English, and we deal with some of these issues of justice in one of my courses. And you're right, community college students *can* make these points, though I find that there are fewer of them who are likely to volunteer to do so. And, again, I think that this is exactly the point.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 9:04 pm

While some of the comments are simplistic, others are well thought out and clever. Also, you have missed part of the point. Science and nature have the advantage of being measured against absolute scales. True (good) and false (bad). 1 1=2, good.
Civic laws have no natural scale to measure against. Murder is bad, hence illegal, b/c enough people agree collectively that it is morally wrong to deprive another of life. Nature holds no such prohibition. Indeed, animals and plants and other life forms can kill without violating any natural law.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, June 2010, 10:42 am

I do agree with you! One should be serious in certain situations. But I doubt whether he is a student.It seems that the discussion is open to anyone...

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 3:12 pm

It may be possible to decide law WITHOUT entering into moral and religious controversies. They both are, after all, subjective constructs of people, usually supported by groups. Homosexuality and marriage can be deconstructed of morality and religion. Homosexuality can be medically psychologically genetically classified as pathology. Instead of patronizing euphemizing legalizing pathology we could decide to understand it and treat it appropriately. A first priority might be the transgendered sufferers. Marriage could be identified in line with emotional content plus economical social political goals of the society.
One thing we should not be doing is exactly what our society is doing;
taking the path less travailed.
reply

(Xorox) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 11:11 pm

THANK YOU
Thank you Professor Sandel for your excellent lecture series. The lectures were clear and easy to understand. Hopefully, Harvard will offer many other courses during the future with a similar format.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 11:32 pm

I think that if we're debating the morality of this issue, then it IS moral for homosexuals to wed. However, they should NOT be allowed to adopt children. It is not moral for them to raise a child, because of the amount of repercussion's that child will face everyday. Because there is not that balance of being raised by a man and a woman, A child is more likely to have a psychological disorder. Although some people embrace the fact that they are homosexual, others see it as a sickness. It is not moral to inflict upon a person that amount of stress because of the imbalance they will have from being raised by a homosexual couple.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 8:34 am

You are basing your adoption argument on an emotional argument, not a logical one. Please check out the _many_ long-term studies on children adopted by gay couples.

(Gary Peterson) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 12:50 pm

Can you provide some empirical evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to have a psychological disorder? If that is so, how do you explain all of the children of heterosexual parents, adopted or otherwise, who develop psychological disorders? On what grounds do you base your statement that a heterosexual couple is by nature balanced? Should we remove all children from single parent homes and place them with 'balanced' parents to avert the potential and 'more likely' result of them having a psychological disorder due to the lack of male/female balance? The direction of your logic and reasoning seems inherently flawed when these implications are considered, along with the lack of evidence.

(Venom) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 5:46 pm

So will you pay for all the children that will be forced to stay in the adoption system because of that view? Considering many places refuse to vote up taxes for schools, police and firefighters, let alone social services, i doubt even if you would, enough others would agree for it to actually work.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 10, January 2010, 1:44 am

If you change the date of (Unregistered)'s post to, say 1930 and substitute the word 'black' for 'homosexual', see what happens. The post still fits, but it is not a view that I would choose to hold today.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 1:54 am

I'm very happy you brought up the issue of the effects on the children! I heard a story about a young child (and imagine many others) derided by other children, " Why two Mommies?" or "Why two Daddies?" and the answer that comes back to them after many years of psychotheropy, "Because your "early life essence providers" didn't think you were worthy of a Mother AND a Father, and because they only had a half working set of coping skills and values figured what better than to curse you with a battle that is not yours with a completely piecemeal set of mixed up (All male or all female) set of skills and values and tools to build your life with, almost surely guaranteeing you to have a screwed up life... God Bless You, and Good Luck....
PS Isn't life difficult enough, not to have others start you out so far behind the eight ball, that THEY can ENJOY YOUR FORMATIVE YEARS, and you'll be so needy, and they will feel so fullfilled..... See life really is quite selfish, ... some really have no consideration for others... (That's part of why they are where they are!!! but no reason why you should be where you are)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, February 2010, 10:37 pm

But, if a society did not discrminate against gay people then the children of same-sex couples would not have to deal with these issues.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 7:55 am

As long as the government offers certain benefits for a "marriage" such as tax deductions of insurance no matter what the definition, they must honor any marriage under any conditions.

The government has no business discriminating between marriage types.

A marriage is a union as simple as that. Let the religions argue over their ceremonies and leave the state to take care of it's business fairly and equally for all.

There is no law against a variety of people living together and even having group sex together or whatever turns them on. So why should the word "marriage" deny them equal rights to the same privileges or perils as any other group.

The same government allows the Insurance Industry to selectively create "groups" for it's financial advantage. "If you happen to work for General Motors, we will put you in a GM group and give you a better rate than other Americans" Why doesn't the government mandate the Insurance Industry to treat everyone equal and allow everyone under the same group with the same advantage? The group would be called "American". If you are American, how can the government allow the Insurance Industry to discriminate between Americans and then say "well if you sleep together and call yourself a couple, or a married couple, then you are not allowed the same advantage as other Americans because you offend someone else."

gpabruce@gmail.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 8:36 am

I agree. I think my gay friends may have missed the boat by not confronting the gay marriage issue through the tax code. Any co-habiters, whether college students, same-sex couples, seniors living together to share expenses, etc should be able to file as a 'couple' under the tax code. Why should single people pay the brunt of taxes when they do not receive all the benefits?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 17, December 2009, 8:25 am

I agree. Marriage is a religious institution, and should not be recognized as a legally binding civil contract. (Extra rights/privileges, different tax policy, child adoption, etc.) The debate should be whether heterosexual marriages should be changed to heterosexual civil unions.

However, if government wants to promote marriage, then it should not discriminate who is allowed to participate based on gender, especially when the government has defined gender as an attribute that is legally protected from discrimination. The same reasoning would apply to the government outlawing interracial marriage. Or enacting a eugenics-based marriage policy against disabled couples.

If the institution of marriage were truly valued by government, then why is heterosexual divorce legal?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 2:11 am

Civil unions are for consenting adults, but marriage is an honorarium saying that with all the trials and tribulations, a young boy and a young girl have grown up in age and skill set and wisdom passed all the tests and have sufficient committment and skills to make a life together suitable to conceive grow guide and nurture to adult hood children and marriage is for protecting and raising healthy and wholesome children, with a full set of values and coping skills, and all the laws are for sanctioning and enhancing that. AND EVERY CHILD DESERVES THIS. he BEST shot at a full and wholesome life.

(Jelle NL) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 10:29 am

Thank you Prof. Sandel for this series of Socratic lectures as well as for your book on Justice. I enjoyed them both. A little criticism though: Why was (the typical American philosophy of) Pragmatism not included?
reply

(pczane) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 11:03 am

Sandel and his students missed an important reason the government cannot be neutral with respect to marriage. Marriage is not simply an arrangement between two adults to cohabitate and, perhaps, if possible, procreate. Since feudal times and before marriage compact has included the incidents of marriage (to use a feudal term), that is to say, rights and obligations that are concomitant with marriage. Today, for example, marriage entitles a surviving spouse to survivor’s social security benefits and tax-free succession to other retirement benefits. It also entitles the surviving spouse to tax-free succession and to the deceased spouse’s share of the primary residence. Spouses also receive certain benefits under private life and health insurance policies. In the case of an intestate decedent (a person who dies without a will), states give surviving spouses rights to inherit at least a minimum portion of the estate. Some states specify minimum shares even if there is a will. Spouses have other rights as well: A spouse is automatically considered next of kin and so, for example, cannot be excluded from visiting an ill spouse in a hospital. A spouse is presumed to be the parent of a child born to the other spouse. Other rights follow as well.

If we took government out of the marriage completely, we would eliminate all of these rights. I suppose Nozick might argue that is preferred result, and that such rights could be enforced privately, but that raises a different question of the proper scope of government, not its morality.

But except in Nozick’s imagined utopia (really, anarchy, but that is a different argument), once we agree that rights exist that follow from marriage, the government cannot avoid the issue of determining what a marriage is. Up to now, most states in the U.S. and the federal government (see the so-called Defense of Marriage Act), have recognized marriage as a union of a consenting man and a consenting woman. This definition is, however, problematic. The Fourteenth Amendment specifies that no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A homosexual couple seeking to marry is asking for equal protection of the laws: the would-be spouses seek certain benefits they could contract for privately (for example, they could jointly own bank accounts and they could make wills favoring each other), but they also want certain rights that heterosexual spouses get, including the tax and social security benefits mentioned above. To deny a gay (or Lesbian) worker’s homosexual spouse social security survivor’s benefits is to deny the gay (or Lesbian) worker and spouse the rights that his (or her) heterosexual colleague and his or her spouse receive. Thus, to deny such rights to the homosexual couple is to deny equal protection of the laws.

If the authority for denying equal protection to the homosexual taxpayer is that the Bible forbids the taxpayer’s sexual practices or that those sexual practices are, to the majority of the society, just yucky, that proves the point: We would be denying equal protection of the laws by making the decision based on the sacred text of some (or even many) or on what some (or even many) consider yucky, and that's not equal protection, but biased protection, biased in favor of what the majority (or otherwise dominant group) determines to be sinful or yucky. Ultimately, opponents of gay marriage base their arguments only on appeals to morality or the majority's sense of aesthetics, or both. Consider, for example, the opinions of the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZS.html, especially Chief Justice Burger's concurrence. The chief justice rests his argument on "millennia of moral teaching." This cannot form the basis for a decision under the equal protection clause because that clause is designed to protect against exactly such majoritarian decision-making, even if the framers of the clause did not have gay rights in mind (and maybe some of them did). Thus, gay marriage isn't a step on some slippery slide into anarchy or immorality; denying gay marriage is a step toward denying rights to any and all disfavored groups. This is the Hangman's refrain, http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles6/hangman_by_maurice_o.htm, and Niemöller's lament, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... I don't need to rely on "millennia of moral teaching"; the last fifty or sixty years teaches me enough.

Government cannot avoid, therefore, the question of whether to enforce rights of marriage. We already have ordered our lives in reliance on those rights. Government already conveys and enforces too many rights to avoid enforcing those rights. Our homosexual brothers and sisters now ask to receive those same rights. Because the only justifications for denying marriage to them are based on religious teachings or aesthetics, the government cannot deny marriage to two consenting adults without employing the religion or aesthetics of the majority. This is precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment forbids. This also violates, of course, Rawls’s standard of justice. This latter point is, to me, sufficient, but we don’t need it here. The Fourteenth Amendment is already the law of land and it solves the problem: Homosexual marriage — marriage between two consenting adults — cannot be denied under the Constitution.
reply

(yoginigirrl) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 12:37 pm

Thank you, “pczane”, for an incredibly cogent response and analysis. You will not convince the people with mindsets molded by years of endless (…mindless) dogma drilled into them from families and peers, but I’ll remember your argument’s primary point for my next discussion with others!

(TheITSystem) said:

Thursday 11, February 2010, 3:17 am

Has it been factually proven that a gay couple that files as married filing jointly will be rejected?

I think we're just assuming that.

Death benefits? Have they been filed for and denied. There are many places that the spouse/partner could use an attorney to protect themselves.

This is just like slavery it will end eventually and I think that time is very near. I'd say it's better handled with logic than rage.

The government can step completely out of the picture. It's my opinion that they should.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 3:41 pm

A big thanks to Michael Sandel and the sponsors for making this happen. The journey doesnt stop here, this is only the beginning.

Ex cultu robur!

Greetings from England.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 7, December 2009, 6:40 am

Change is the only thing that does not change. We human beings try to fix things on time. That is only possible on short periods of time. Then, if everything changes, human beings have to catch up with new challenges on morals and ethics. That is why there will be answers to issues that in turn will raise new ones in an everlasting process. That guarantees Mr. Sandel´s job forever.
On same sex "marriage", marriage was defined as an heterosexual union meant to regulate an ongoing institution. It was both legislated in religious and civil terms taking into consideration other issues derived from it as inheritance, separation and divorce, alimony, etc. Now there is another issue raised on same sex "marriage". Well, give it another name as it is quite different from the other, so both religiously and civil side legislation should be produced with a new name that takes all its consequences into consideration.
On abortion, I disagree with people deciding if life exists through a timetable or defining viability of it. Human beings, in general, will not survive without good care for quite a long time after birth. Finally I do not believe that a woman has decision on the unborn child´s life because it is living in her body. Why does that decision is taken away when the child is already born and it´s still on her
care? Can it be a matter only of geography?
reply

(24816) said:

Tuesday 8, December 2009, 12:56 pm

Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Government ensures the survival of the nation, particularly by giving tax breaks to families that potentially are capable if raising children. Because of current birth rate, people who will populate this country 25 years from now (or as soon as they become intimidating enough) will easily change the laws to their liking…
It makes no sense to enslave women by attempting to save women who would do abortions in back valleys.

Please oppose legalization of gay unions.

I am sympathetic to a tiny percent of homosexual persons, who have biological problems, but the majority of them just do not know how to properly address life’s pressures.

People don't have choice of their race so there can be nothing wrong about our race, but most of us have choice of sexual behavior. That's why we judge gays as well as those who, for example, commit adultery. Even if individual adulterous situation may be understandable, still it's not appropriate for them to set up their own clubs and magazines, to promote their lifestyle.

There is no need to respect people who openly break societal norms. If we do not put a lid on a particular antisocial conduct it spreads like a wild fire and becomes a new norm.

The worst part is that they are publicizing their lifestyle in public places where children can see it. Children often experiment with different ideas. I don't believe that children should be educated about a gay lifestyle before they learn how to become productive members of society.

There was an article in the Newton TAB -- a 14-year-old boy saw a gay ad and since he didn't have a girlfriend at the time, he decided to check out if he was gay, so he went to their meeting and became a member.

Homosexual individuals might have fewer responsibilities, so they make better employees and earn top dollars. With time and money they are manipulating the liberal press and brainwashing our youngsters.

This issue has nothing to do with human rights - everyone has a right to a standard marriage and all other relationships should be prohibited equally for everyone. When fighting for human rights for racial minorities nobody suggested redefining races, similarly, leave the definition of marriage as it served human kind during all of its history.

There is a limit of what we should accept in today's society without becoming a part of what's going on. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because of confused people but rather because this confusion eventually acquired legal status.

Many great civilizations considered themselves progressive and eternal, but turned out to be unlivable and fell apart, G-d forbid!

If you believe that this prediction is far-fetched then think about the current birth rate statistics, then envision whose children are going to pay for Social Security benefits few decades from now, and how it will affect the country.

If you choose to do nothing about it then pray that the change takes place without much hostility. Pray for the all the Western world, as we know it, because over the ocean the Old decadent Europe is also changing, it is turning Muslim. You see, Muslims did not separate mosque and state, they practice their religion and compensate for our falling birth rate and other failures, so pretty soon, quite legally, they might have enough votes, G-d forbid, to overturn many liberal laws including gay marriages. If it sounds extreme, remember how Hitler and other dictators used democracy to acquire power.

I do not see any solution to this problem, besides school vouchers. For the current system discriminates and erodes religious communities by expropriating money of religious taxpayers toward public schools where for 12 years it imposes secular credo on population.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 3:24 am

24816 - Thank you. As an "old decadent European" it is always good to hear that people pray for you. But please do it for the right reason. Europe is not turning into a Islamic theocracy.
Your comment breathes fear. What has happened to your FAITH (in your own moral strenght), HOPE (for a unity in diversity) and LOVE (for your non-Christian fellowman)? Need a boost? This is what helped me: visit the Statue of Liberty and spend the early morning at her feet.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 11, December 2009, 4:44 pm

you said: "This issue has nothing to do with human rights - everyone has a right to a standard marriage and all other relationships should be prohibited equally for everyone."

This reminds me of a quote I once heard from a French aristocrat: "in France everyone is equal, neither the poor nor the rich are allowed to sleep under a bridge."
You said: "There is no need to respect people who openly break societal norms. If we do not put a lid on a particular antisocial conduct it spreads like a wild fire and becomes a new norm."
But wait, would that not mean that some of our norms today are the result of "antisocial conduct" that became a new norm? What about new norms like allowing interracial relationships? Should we condemn those who displayed "antisocial conduct" by breaking norms and falling in love with someone with a different shade of skin colour? What about other social norms that we have abandoned- like the acceptance of slavery, the ancient promotion of pederasty, and the a subjugation of women?

(Venom) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 6:18 pm

first and foremost i must relieve myself of all the forumite answers screaming through my head.
troll!
Flamebait!
Godwin's law!
FUD!
Citation Needed!
Too much fox news for you. (Bet you invested in goldline)
(okay admittedly the last one was from the daily show)

I feel better. Now for actual discussion.
Your arguments have no bearing on the legality and justice of same sex marriage/civil union in a governmental fashion. See the bill of rights amendment 1 and 14 and/or the other amendment based arguments on this page. 1 contains the separation of church and state clause. 14 contains the equal protection under the law clause, If you don't like the boundaries these represent well i'm sorry i doubt an amendment will be passed to annul them so i would recommend finding a nice christian based theocracy somewhere. In America the constitution is the supreme law of the the land.

As for the population issue, see ecological carrying capactiy, see chinese population laws and controversies. We don't need more people anymore. We aren't invading or being subjected to plagues. We need to intelligently manage our resources.

ps please proof read your comments. Some parts are very hard to understand.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 10:22 pm

In Buddhism there's a saying; "Are you sure?"
If I read Alice in Wonderland and believed it to be representative of the real world I'd then be as confused as you are. I've read just so much confusion in your mind that it just seems hopeless to try to respond with any success. Maybe you could consider that it's religion that imposes, confuses and indoctrinates. It also seems to teach others that if you don't think and act like me, my whole world is going to fall apart, so don't be different than me and expect me to allow you equality. You will not destroy my make believe world!

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 15, January 2010, 10:22 pm

Hitler achieved power with the enthusiastic backing of the Catholic Church, which silenced some 22 million Germans that might have otherwise objected to current events on ethical grounds, so I'm not sure what your point was. I'm sure you have one, but I can't quite find it.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 3:53 am

Good Lord, respectfully, I disagree with almost everything in the original post. The unsubstantiated dogma that you spout sounds oh so familiar. Often, it seems that the hate stems from the belief that sexual preference is consciouly selected. Speaking from my own personal experience, I can't see how this could be true. I knew very early on in life, that I was heterosexual. I can only conclude that people who deem that homosexuality is a chosen deviancy, must be making that determination based upon the fact that they could choose to become homosexual. Furthermore, to compensate for these feelings, they embrace religious dogma and adopt an extreme hate for who they might be. We saw a spate of these in New Mexico with homosexual Catholic priests. Curiously, all that were molested were young men.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, December 2009, 3:01 pm

I think the class as well as the public debates on homosexual marriage miss the big picture of government and law. Having an institution of marriage makes life easier for management purpose. Even without marriage law, the institution still exists, by convention. The effect of the law is like a process of standardization, i.e, certain rights and obligations are implied. If a couple want additionalconditions, they can create additional legal contracts. For most couples, the conventional definition suffices. There are always atypical families, but it would not be necessary or cost effective to create different institutions. It is better to handle them case by case.

If the number of homosexual couples is significant in a soceity, it would be cost-effective to consider the issue. (1)If the items listed in the contracts of most homosexual couples are the same as those for the conventional marriage defined by the existing law, we just extend the law to include homosexual couples. (2)If they are different, we create a new category.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 11, December 2009, 5:56 pm

I think someone pointed this out already, but it seems to me the class missed an important reality in all of this.... the rights attached to marriage. These rights, or at least the idea of marriage rights, goes back to the very beginning of the institution of marriage itself. Therefore, one cannot discuss whether to impliment same sex marriage without discussing the rights that follow from marriage itself. Since these rights are given to ALL heterosexual couples who wish to marry at the moment, for whatever reason they decided to marry and despite whatever they believe marriage is, one has to ask whether the state can withhold those same rights from homosexuals and for what reason. It is my belief that the state can not withhold those rights and that unless those who oppose same sex can prove conclusively that the state has a compelling interest in denying those rights (Compelling interest in this case means something Governmentally necessary), then it should take utmost haste in extending those rights.

It is my belief that the state does not have a compelling interest in this case. I'll give an instance of why. Many opponents of same sex marriage claim that the institution of marriage is specifically tailored to further procreation, and thus, institutionalizing same sex marriage could somehow undermine that purpose. But that rests on some very faulty logic. It assumes that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would somehow HURT prodreative efforts in general (meaning that somehow allowing them to marry would stifle hetreosexual procreation), something that doesn't make much sense at all. How would a same sex marriage undermine procreation? Would heterosexuals stop having children? Would it limit their options? Would heterosexuals suddenly switch teams in mass and all marry the same sex? Would homosexuals not use the technology currently available to perhaps have children of their own through other means (such a surrogate mother)? As one can see, these questions can't really be answered by opponents of same sex marriage precisely because the position they take in this instance is incoherent. One would have to jump across a very large gap in logic in order to come to the conclusion that same sex marriage would hinder or undermine procreation in any way.

As another example, it's often stated that marriage is "sacred" and thus allowing homosexuals to marry would undermine the sacred nature of marriage. But does the state have an interest in maintaining, institutionally, the notion of marriage as "sacred"? And does someone elses marriage that you disagree with getting bestowed states rights suddenly mean your marriage is no longer sacred? I find that idea to be a little absurd. The state would not be bestowing the title of "sacred" onto same sex marriage, they would simply be extending previously denied marriage rights to same sex couples. Thus, I fail to see how ones personal view of marriage would suddenly no longer apply to any marriage at all.

That said, my main point is that, so long as the state has no compelling interest in denying same sex couples those rights, then the state has a Constitutional duty to extend those rights to homosexual couples. If it does not, then it is in direct violation of the laws of this country.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, December 2009, 11:59 am

You still miss the point of government and law. The government simply provides marriage as a standard contract, with its cultural and religious origins. The contents are different from state to state or country, but are similar enough to get a common recognition. To include homosexual couples would create confusion.

If a homosexual couple feel like it, they can just copy all the applicable rights and obligations of a standard marriage into their own contract. They get all the legal protection they want.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 10:28 pm

Amen!

(michelliott) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 1:32 pm

Isn't that like the "separate is not equal" experience during the civil rights movement. I think the important part of marriage in modern society is the social respect towards the unit that is evaded in the act of making two separate kinds of unions. It's disrespectful, and says, you're not as good as us. That's a problem. That's not fair and has no valuable purpose.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 2:43 am

Michelliot, you seem to miss the point, for most of their purposes, they think they are separate but equal, but THEY REALLY ARE INFERIOR, half baked, and fully unfit to be parents. They could not even get a date with the opposite sex, yet alone get along lifetime committment with one. They are not even tested and proven to be adequate for the stress and skills to withstand what's required to bring up healthy and wholesome young adults fully prepared for the challenges of healthy and wholesome life.... YES I REPEAT MYSELF.
I think anyone who doesn't understand this has ahalf stacked deck themselves ... so why bother ... Duh

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 1:48 pm

My innocent suggestion/propose that we should reThink and redefine what is the use of sexual expression... ??
-a.k.a lamb
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 8:41 pm

Hello,

I loved watching your passion in debates and discussions as i lack in my critical thoughts over religion? As we grow through our reading, i have realised it may be a heart-warming story but there is always much evidence for us to bring our contradictions to thoughts or views through evaluating strengths and weaknesses.

Steffi K
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 8:49 pm

Hello,

as somebody has commented above i would really like to know why the government and law hasn't been discussed? As i feel to the past to present the political power has great impact and how our environment has developed to the 21st century to "socialism"? Great passion towards our "society"

Steffi Kenwright
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 9:06 pm

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm,

I would like to know what is happening within the law and government? there is so much detail you could know as for the changes in the EU and how other members of state are changing there minds? It feels i can't synthesize clearly?

Towards inequality and discrimination within a law book the court of law can't justify directly?

Thanks.

I have learnt some good thoughts.

S.K.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 16, December 2009, 9:19 am

Just heard that DC is going to issue marriage certificate to homosexual couples. One of the reasons is that the city will make a profit of million in three years, typical of the thinking of a corrupted government.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, December 2009, 4:38 pm

It is very arrogant of mankind to make a lifetime commitment to anyone except god. How can we make a life time commitment to one another when we don't know what is to happen to us a second, a minute, an hour, a day or at anytime into the future. Making a life time commitment is like walking in a casino and asking for the jackpot and wanting the casino to enter into a legal obligation between your friends to play to win the jackpot or bust! If marriage is not about having children, than it is definitely not any secular states reason to play a double standard and engage into a moral and outright outrageous demand being made by people whom would like to make life time commitments called "marriage"!
reply

(michelliott) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 1:22 pm

I don't think a lifetime commitment is so impossible. Probably not everyone is cut out for it.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, December 2009, 1:30 am

I still don't know about marriage, but should people marry?
I don't know about homosexual, but there is beautiful boy who is homosexual in my class. I think I am asexual.
THere are so many people talk in the page, can anyone talk something essential?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, December 2009, 1:34 am

I just know about marriage and love from films, but I think I can learn it in America.
If these things are for us to discuss, I think the life is wonderful to have a soceity.
Thank you for the course reminds me to think about it.
I think I grow up from this.
It is wonderful.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, December 2009, 5:06 pm

Although these discussions are unavoidable, how can reflecting on issues that seemingly have no answer be of any good? We don't know what we do is truly morally just or not, when there are so many conflicting opinions. So how should we approach moral philosophy? Do we continue to live, making the best decisions we can make using the reflective qualities that we have learned from this course? And if not, what more can we do? How do we live with multiple options? To what extent do we need to know the right and the wrong and do the right and the wrong, and therefore to what extent should we pursue right and wrong and truth given the confusion that it brings? I don't know how to live with no answers, all these varying viewpoints, I can't come up with my own, since there are so many different perspectives in each situation. Please advise.
reply

(michelliott) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 1:19 pm

Meditate! I believe we all know what's right, but most of us don't have enough good thought time with ourselves. In our society there's too much external input and not enough self reflection.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 1:21 am

See "Untangling Barack Obama's Audacious Mumbo Jumbo" (at Salon and scribd) where the infamous nail is hit on the proverbial head.

Of course I don;t believe Obama actually believes the rubbish he spews but I do think he knows that Winston Churchill was right when he cynically quipped that "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with he average voter."
reply

(michelliott) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 1:15 pm

We do not have a pure democracy. We have a democratic republic and that's a different breed. And that difference is so important.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 4:02 am

If you represent the average voter, then Churchill was right. Thankfully, you overestimate your intelligence compared to the average voter.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 7:46 am

It seems that individuals keep forgetting that marriage is not a political institution but a Christian institution based on moral values outlined by the Bible. With or without political recognition these values are still the founding principles on which marriage is based.

The political incentives awarded to heterosexual marriages, due to the fact that they provide a stable structure (family) which is the backbone of any society and indirectly the reason for that society's survival.

Of all the reviews I have read so far...I haven't seen where anyone has stressed the importance of the family structure to the politics of a society. With current problems of infidelity plaguing heterosexual marriages, is it wise to introduce another avenue that further creates instability among couples? Is it wise to erode the structure that has ensured the survival of our society? Yes people are free do what ever they like...but as mentioned in the video...what ever position the state takes...it will be sending a collective message, whether or not same sex unions should be recognized.
reply

(michelliott) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 1:08 pm

I don't see how homosexual marriage would erode marriage? That's jumping to a conclusion that I don't believe is true. Honoring other types of families would be good in that it's more realistic and protects the rights of more people in the society.

(michelliott) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 1:13 pm

Were there no marriages before Christianity? Didn't people get married before Christ? Marriage has evolved like everything else and people get married who are of no religious affiliation or even believe in God. Marriage is a showing of respect for the unit of a family. That's why it is important to people who don't fit the mold to be included. They are citizens also.

(Speedbump) said:

Tuesday 22, June 2010, 12:27 pm

Marriage is not necessarily a Christian institution. All religion , all societies have marriage.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 5:06 am

"pczane" argues that government cannot be neutral with respect to marriage, because too many other rights are dependent on marriage -- rights of inheritance, tax benefits, etc.

But those things are not actually "rights" -- they are in fact another instance of government failing to be properly neutral, by discriminating in favor of married people, giving them rights not available to unmarried people.

In essence, "pczane" is saying that because government is already elevating some relationships over others, it must continue to do so in order to protect its existing forms of discrimination and interference in peoples' lives.

This does not seem to me to be sound reasoning.

Anarchy is not the only alternative, although it deserves more careful consideration than simply being dismissed as "utopia." Causes such as women's suffrage and the abolition of plantation slavery were also once considered "utopian."

Another alternative is for government to restrict itself to protecting life, liberty, and justly acquired property. Such government would leave people free to make their own choices in life so long as they did not *initiate force or fraud* against others. Such government would be funded by voluntary contributions, instead of relying on coercive force to take from the community.

For more on the philosophy of liberty, I recommend this short animated video:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 5:11 am

I am the author of the above post. In the second paragraph, I spoke of government giving married people "rights not available to unmarried people."

I should have referred to "PRIVILEGES not available to unmarried people." Governments are not the source of rights -- human beings have inherent, natural rights.

As the United States Declaration of Independence states, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among (human beings), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

(cherokee) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 11:44 am

if individuals have varying perspectives on the purpose and moral permissibility of sexuality, procreation, masturbation etc. then I feel
that those things should be the purview of moral/ethical organizations,
e.g. churches etc.

the social impact of marriage on a society can be approached through civil unions, all tax/economic/paternal issues can be addressed through
civil unions.

couples can be joined by either marriage or civil union or both.
(I suspect that most couples should choose both)
reply

(Venom) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 5:12 pm

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Is it wrong because god said so? Then its none of the governments business and not a valid legal reason. Separation of church and state. end of story. If the church doesn't like it being called marriage it can
"...petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
and that only took one amendment. Next.
reply

(24816) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 12:57 pm

The myth of over-population
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20000509.atc.14.rmm
reply

(wsoutherland) said:

Friday 11, June 2010, 3:42 am

As a species, we've essentially decided (as a result of economic pressure and education) to try to have more quality children that live longer than simply try to produce as many as possible. It just makes more sense for people to wait until they are ready to have children.

(24816) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 6:47 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html
reply

(24816) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 6:59 pm

you may suffer from left brain domination:
http://rjews.net/v_rotenberg/creativity.html
reply

(wsoutherland) said:

Friday 11, June 2010, 3:53 am

The information in this article is at worst, anecdotal and, at best, severely outdated. Electric shock is actually noted as a clinically viable test about halfway down.

(24816) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 7:24 pm

Here is an alternative idea to separate religion from government without becoming irrelevant: http://24816.livejournal.com/3028.html

Somewhat related see thoughts about evolution: http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/nauka-rel/universal_genome.htm
(included in 2008 “The expert guide to the most important advances in biology” ) http://f1000biology.com/guardpages/evaluation/1090281/article/article.asp%3Fid%3D1090281%26view%3D%26style%3D )
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 11, January 2010, 11:27 pm

Of course it is totally impossible,marriage is a spiritual law created by
God(recognized by all faiths) for a man and women to procreate to form a strongly bonded family unit to raise adults(notice i didn't say children)to go out and love and serve our community,country,world etc,but
is physically written by man.Homosexuality is man made lifestyle.Gay men and lesbians cannot procreate and therefor it doesn't apply.You can
try to change man made laws but you can never change Gods laws.The spiritual laws always override man made laws.God makes laws to protect us from getting hurt.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 12:39 pm

Someone posted a comment that there have been studies about how same-sex marriage affects the children involved. I would be curious to know the source and the content of those studies. I am not interested in studies that compare difficult marital situations but rather ones that compare healthy male-female marriages vs. same-sex marriages. Thank you.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 9:07 am

Thanks every one who made this possible, thanks professor Sandel for the great teachings. I really enjoyed this. With love from Argentina.

G. Pedersen
reply

(TheITSystem) said:

Thursday 11, February 2010, 1:46 am

Victoria, I just want you to know that I remembered your name.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 11:08 pm

you are so funny ,man

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, March 2010, 7:27 am

what are you talking about,man

(TheITSystem) said:

Thursday 11, February 2010, 2:45 am

By the way I didn't change my answer on the quiz to the wrong one on purpose I was hitting the down key to reach the next button and it switched my answer :-P

As for these 12 episodes, all I can say is thank you. I found the first one on TED which is my home page and I haven't even been watching TED for the past couple of weeks because I had a chance to sit in on the internet with a Harvard Professor and I'm going to guess one of the better ones because that was a fantastic, thought provoking, well taught, well directed, well filmed, amazing experience for me.

Thank you Michael Sandel, Thank you Harvard, Thank you to everyone involved in making this possible.

;-) I still see empty seats, if I'm ever in Boston I'm going to see if I can sit in on one of your lectures live.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 13, February 2010, 5:47 pm

Mankind wants to change a few marriage laws. Shall we see what’s in the law book?
The argument is now with a supernatural being that has no beginning or end.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Deu 6:14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
Deu 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 24, February 2010, 12:45 am

The concept of marriage pre-dates the fevered desert scribblings of the Old Testament by thousands of years. So uh, good luck with that.

Let us know when you have something to add to the debate.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 11:06 am

Provide any solid proof that these writings are indeed form the hand of the 'True God' and I would say that you have a point. While you may have taken the 'leap of faith' in your beliefs, many (i.e. the majority of people in the world) would disagree with your conclusion. Therefore, quoting out of one book of rules really holds no more water than quoting from a Star Trek episode.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, February 2010, 12:29 am

Well I think this question depends on different counties，each country has its traditional culture ，and which will result in different moral conscious，maybe some developed westen countries can accept but some other countries such as China，this action will be very hard to understand。About my opinion I think each person has his or her right to seek happiness,and this his is the basic human right.The new world the new policy,we are seaching the higher level of happiness,for more peopel getting more happiness, for more people decreasing pain,we should make more policy benefiting people following the new age.
reply

(Keira123) said:

Wednesday 7, April 2010, 12:29 pm

agreed

(zingman007) said:

Wednesday 17, February 2010, 12:36 am

Well, I think this question depends on different counties，each country has its traditional culture ，and which will result in different moral conscious，maybe some developed westen countries can accept but some other countries such as China，this action will be very hard to understand。About my opinion I think each person has his or her right to seek happiness,and this his is the basic human right.The new world the new policy,we are seaching the higher level of happiness,for more peopel getting more happiness, for more people decreasing pain,we should make more policy benefiting people following the new age.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 18, February 2010, 8:28 am

This is the original for the definition of marriage, precisely because of pre-existing definition of marriage is why we have whether it is to marry this view. Whether same-sex marriage based on compliance with the provisions of the Marriage Law to determine. If the provision of early marriage in the distinction between sex, then this statement is not the establishment of same-sex marriage, but this does not deny the similarities between same-sex marriage situation exists, we can consider re-drafting of relevant laws to protect same-sex "marriage" in the relevant rights. The same-sex "marriage" This behavior can be replaced by other words.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 25, February 2010, 12:09 am

Couples get benefits under the law
Families get additional benefits.\
These benefits are designed to provide some aid to people who are lawfully burdened by having the extra expenses of caring entirely for another person.

If there is a bread-winner and a home-maker in a homosexual relationship then the State should give them the same tax relief it would give to the heterosexual couple who file their taxes under a head of household. Both need the money equally.

In a family the need is greater because children can not pay for themselves , and the government does it's society a necessary service by alleviating some of the burden of cost caring for children.

Homosexual parents should also get this financial relief.

When the doctors in a hospital expressly say "Family only allowed" as a gay man is dying- his "husband" should be recognized in all necessary ways to be given the right into that room.

This is all "marriage" under the law should be.

Whether or not anyone in these legal unions copulate with eachother shouldn't be the concern of the state at all!
reply

(liuxuehao) said:

Thursday 25, February 2010, 10:02 am

It's sad that I cannot see this video because I come from China where youtube is blocked. Though I cannot know what the content is, I want to say the same sex marriage should be legal. Marriage is just a contract which is signed by two adults and protected by laws. Thus people who signed this contract will know clearly what they can do, e.g. how to allocate their property when they are divorced. Now as far as I know in America LGBTs can get married in practice. But there is no clear laws. That makes their marriage unstable and no guarantee. Their rights and obligations are unsettled. This is bad for the society.

And I believe that any individual can do anything he/she like unless his/her behavior hurts others. I can't find out who is the "victim" in a same sex marrige. If there isn't, why can't their marriage be legal? why can't they have clear rights and obligations to protect themselves or receive punishment if they do something wrong.
reply

(zhaiyj) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 7:41 pm

嗯...你可以看优酷视频，还带英文字慕呢~
嗯...你提到了合约...课程中有一集谈到了合约的局限性，有时间你可以去看一下。简单来说，合约规定的事物也不一定是合乎道德的。的确有很多人在同性恋，但也不意味着很多人在做就说明他们的做法是道德的。我们如果要弄清楚给予同性恋者以结婚的权利是否是正义与公平的，就应该首先弄懂同性恋本身究竟是什么，而这也正是本节课前半部分的要点。你可以去看看视频。同学们争辩十分地激烈和精彩。

“只要不伤害他人(的权利)，一个人就有权利做任何事。”这应该说能算是道德的一部分。但是“伤害他人”——如何知道你没有在伤害他人呢？有很多事情看似没有伤害他人，但却是不道德的行为。有的行为使得某些人的权利受到损失，但却是一种道德的行为。这样的例子只在这个讲座里就能找出很多。

同性恋者所伤害的可能是身边的人，可能是整个社会。我还没有搞太清楚，但是之所以肯定的是，结婚生子可以为社会的未来贡献优秀的后代，本身是一种(可以算是)道德的行为。如果这个论断成立的话，我们的确没法制止同性恋者进行同性恋，但是完全有能力和责任不去鼓励这种做法，因为它不大遵循日常的道德。

Sandel教授鼓励我们去不断地讨论，不断地举出反例，为求对原来的知识和概念有更深一步的了解。

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 11:04 pm

not noly youtube blocked，but IMDB .blogspot ，GFW is "cool"

(Speedbump) said:

Tuesday 22, June 2010, 12:20 pm

Same sex marriage creates the legal "slippery slope" of an undefined social structure. All cultures limit the freedoms of their members in order to maintain stability.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 15, August 2010, 10:27 am

the same with you .i also cannot see the video!悲哀滴呀

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 1, October 2010, 11:52 am

ok ,一起悲剧

(brian.foulkrod) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 4:45 am

I may not be gay, but I am a strong believer in the Constitution. Those who would use the law and their interpretation of the Constitution to further an agenda are hypocritical when on one hand they would use the Bill of Rights to defend their views, and on the other hand use their rights as a blunt force weapon to enforce their views on the rest of society (who must in turn surrender their own rights to fall in line). How odd to say the state should not sanction gay marriage, while demanding that the same state sanction your own religious views upon others. You can not, by any stretch, insist that you or your church, party or other organization holds special rights above others without opening the door to fascism and dictatorship. To hold your own rights as sacred, you must also hold the rights of others equally so. My ancestors who arrived as indentured servants were barred from marriage just as slaves were, and on the religious side, a man and woman from different denominations still face the reality of their churches not recognizing the union unless one converts. Should the state let those churches also refuse to recognize those marriages? Let the camel's nose in the tent, and the rest will follow. Let those who are willing to surrender their rights completely be the first to suggest others do the same. To condemn other nations perceived to discriminate against "christians" while in your own country trying to achieve government sanctioned bigotry is both hypocritical and flies in the face of those who truly do respect and defend the Constitution. Some will disagree with us or live differently, but that is the nature of living in a free and open society based on a simply written Constitution. Nations like Iran and Afghanistan are wonderful alternatives for those who crave a non-secular government.
reply

(zhaiyj) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 12:53 am

Since everyone sees a different aspect to the thing we call "marriage", it's hard for us to write "the standard/criteria of marriage" in to the Law. And, since we haven't found a way to make it into the Law, we are AT THE PRESENT can think about anything reasonable.

However, we, as humans, have many common properties and thoughts. So we can talk about what we think commonly about "marriage". First, marriage includes a matter of "sex". In this point view, two people who can have sex can marry with each other. So I really don't think same-sex marriage is generally morally wrong unless we can find another thing in marrage that most people agree.

But should government and laws get out of the business? Many people in the course seemed not to realize that this is totally a different problem. In fact, as most people think, there are another important component in marriage: the responsibility that one partner should have to the other. As we know, responsibility is a matter of moral. Unfortunately, moral sometimes does not work, simply because people face incentives that are not morally right but bring utility advantages. It is clear that we should ask help for government to make laws to stop people from breaking the morals. In this way, the government's action is reasonable and necessary.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 7, March 2010, 8:55 am

真的很不错~呵呵，其实中国也有很多类似的大师~~
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, March 2010, 8:09 pm

really?

(Keira123) said:

Wednesday 7, April 2010, 12:24 pm

喜欢这句话支持

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 29, May 2010, 10:50 pm

可能吧，但我没听说过

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 15, August 2010, 10:29 am

偶喜欢，熟悉的文字，看着就舒服啊。。。。

(wenny wang) said:

Friday 20, August 2010, 8:35 am

。。加入队伍。。

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, October 2010, 2:20 am

我是来打酱油的...中国也有“很多”类似的大师，那为什么这么多中国人来这里，I am Smilence and eggache.

(jkfan312) said:

Monday 8, March 2010, 10:37 pm

SO, if government forbid same-sex marrige,what benifits would government get?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, March 2010, 10:00 am

It's really not a good idea to think all the time "what the government can get by doing this or that." it be happening now, but it shouldn't be that way. Government should be non-for-profit as itself and be for-profit for the world.

(Speedbump) said:

Tuesday 22, June 2010, 12:15 pm

Stability

(rickytorres2005) said:

Thursday 11, March 2010, 7:24 am

I thank you Michael Sandel and the Harvard University for shearing this videos.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 11:08 am

Thank you to Harvard and Professor Sandel for providing free access to this intelligent and thought provoking series of lectures. This truly shows the potential of the Internet to provide access to educational information and content to the world; one that was largely squandered by earlier technologies such as radio and television. Free access to this type of quality exploration of the basis of justice and fairness can only make the world a better place.
For me, the series points out that there is no single philosophy for justice that can answer all cases because at the root, there is not a single agreement for the purpose of human existence. While it is useful to generalize philosophies to come to some common framework for a perfect moral and just society; cultural and religious beliefs and traditions evovled from different peoples under different physical environments makes this a Herculean and seemingly impossible task. Add-in the complexities from individual racial, physical, and mental differences assigned by genetic variability and one is tempted to throw-up your hands and give up. Recognize though, that the human experience and associated culture is not static; and therefore, our system of Justice must change in parallel.
For those that would cling to beliefs and traditions based solely upon the argument of maintaining status quo, I would say that challenging the conventional wisdom is a worthwhile pursuit to evolving our society. Sure, many of the challenges may end up being bad ideas, and cast aside (and be discomforting); but without them, there is no progress towards the ultimate just society which needs to be extended to all man-kind.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, March 2010, 1:02 pm

Personally, I don't think marriage is for the purpose of having children b/c people have children without marriage as well. I think marriage is for the purpose of spiritual happiness, then why is it limited to physical creature? When we were born, we had no choice of being male or female for our physical creature; however, same-sex couple are spiritually male and female as well. Religion is spiritual belif thus shouldn't be against thus marriage. In the end, I do agree that state shouldn't encourge it either.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, March 2010, 4:02 am

Hi my name is Cameron Schive (18) from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and I would like to state my opinion about, "same sex marriage." there seems to be creative sides to this argument, one based on the fact that homosexuality is a choice that can be accepted vs a religion which believes marriage is only between a man and a women. The logical idea out of the two should be the fact that everyone has a creative choice to be homosexual and I believe that for you, because you exist compared to a better being whose empirical evidence is more close to zero! Anyone against my belief may prove to us that there is someone better than everyone, to show us further that his say conquers that fate of all. Otherwise without that proof, creative ideas to the vote turn into logical ones when those options are cut in half, but hopefully based on the ideas whom are empirically evident; that one creator of the same sex can love one creator of the same sex.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 8:04 pm

First please allow me to preface my answer by telling everyone that I am resident of Redneckistan, aka Biblethumpistan, aka Tennessee and that I have very little formal college education. I just finished the episode regarding same sex marriage and I was surprised that nobody raised what are to me two very important issues with regard to government intervention, and indeed prevention of same sex marriage. First is Constitution amendment #1 which, in part, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise thereof". Furthermore, the 14th amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Consequently, it seems to me that religious objections to same sex marriage are mute points by virtue of the 1st amendment. Moreover, the 14th amendment, at least as I interpret it, guarentees, or at least is supposed to, equal protection under the law to ALL citizens of the U.S., weather they be gay or straight, tall or short, black or white, fat or skinny, or whatever have you. As a result, I don't really see why we're all still waysting our time on this.
reply

(Anronson Lee) said:

Saturday 17, April 2010, 10:29 am

I'm a sophomore in School of Public Policy and Management,Hunan Normal University in China. When it comes to the issue about the same sex marriage, I totally think it is a choice,to be specific, a preference of our own.To begin with, you have the right to choose a soul mate since we are legally equal, no matter you are gay or straight.The right to love freely is a part within the justice thing.
In addition, gays or lesbians live rather a tough life in the world, even in USA where people have faith in liberity and equality. If we all place pressure on them, where can they find the very life they want?
Life itself is unfair,and we can't make it more.
reply

(Auto) said:

Monday 21, June 2010, 3:59 am

What a brilliant opinion. It is obviously that everyone has the freedom to choose the life they want. The society should not place pressure on them who are gays or lesbians.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 1, May 2010, 5:25 am

thank you harvard and professor sandel! we look forward to new lectures! maria, yakutsk
reply

(shush) said:

Tuesday 18, May 2010, 10:15 am

The question that overrides and should “supervise” this issue rests upon recognition of whether or not there exists transcendent input of direction. One response quoted the Bible without explanation. The response to that was just as week and naive. Words and ideas without context are just so much scribbling. Graffiti speaks in code or defamation.
Question, is there a transcendent being? If not then justice defined worked out among ourselves is the highest and best. However, if there is a transcendent being, then we need to explore the nature of that being. If in the course of exploration, the character of the transcendent one becomes known then based upon that revelation does it not then follow that the interjection of the transcendent one if more powerful than us or all-powerful must be at least consulted. Arguments based upon a closed system of understanding lead to utilitarianism and survival of the fittest. Moreover, even if not stated is this not the point of this study?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, June 2010, 4:26 am

good good study,day day up.

(wsoutherland) said:

Friday 11, June 2010, 2:29 am

Isn't it interesting that the two places in the US that heavily support same-sex marriage (San Francisco and Boston) are very heavily populated? If the purpose of marriage is the production of children, then that purpose is irrelevant in places that are overpopulated with people fighting over jobs.

Materially, marriage is no different than a corporation of 2 people with a 50/50 split of assets. Indeed states already acknowledge a marriage of a person to themselves since it only takes 1 person to start a corporation. Its a marriage of a person to a concept of a living entity, complete with its own social security number (tax id number) and its own name. Married couples don't even have that.
reply

(wsoutherland) said:

Friday 11, June 2010, 2:53 am

Further, the original purpose of marriage was to keep the peasants, monarchs and nobles from carelessly intermixing. Indeed, laws that let noble and royal men get the "first crack" at the newly married couples wife was to encourage better breeding.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 19, June 2010, 7:45 pm

Sandell's argument does not preclude the possible union of several people in the 'honored' status of marriage. Nor does the argument of the Mass. Supreme Court prevent a marriage between first cousins or the marriange of human and animal. The reality of bending the laws to include same sexpartners is that you can't preclude polygomy, marriage of cousins, marriage of minors and adults. If the state opens the door to same sex marriage it opens the door to all the various types of marriage that marital law judges as being illegal. The answer is to look at the rights granted under civil union. By granting the same spousal rights under civil union the state recognizes the right of same sex unions but maintains the state authority to determine what is a marriage and what is not.
reply

(Auto) said:

Monday 21, June 2010, 1:03 am

I am a new passerby, and I feel interesting in this issue. I will continue watching this course.
By the way, I can't see the video here.I have to see it in other ways.
reply

(Speedbump) said:

Tuesday 22, June 2010, 12:08 pm

Marriage is a license and is subject to the arbitrary decisions of the sovereign states. In my state of Idaho, the common position taken is that homosexuality is not an inherited condition and therefor requires no special rights. (read the research of the human genome project) If no special rights can be found, than licenses can be denied by the will of the majority.
reply

(vahan) said:

Wednesday 23, June 2010, 1:39 pm

Most of you are students of a Great University and citizens of influential and rich country, but this conditions does not result in rightness of your thinking and persuasiveness of your arguments. Because I believe that the right minded citizen should care about the future of his/her country, that means he or she should make responsible decisions now considering the fact that these decisions will result the coming future. Moreover if you are making a decision you should also be able to see the future cause "result" of it, it is important to be able to see the long term effect. So if you accept the idea that two humans with the same sex can marry which means that they would also like to grow up an offspring you should also accept that after several generations the society would partially or even mostly consist of people grown up in the same sex families. Because humans are intended to behave against generally accepted moral principles. And you should also be able to see or imagine the future people like you, who would seat down in the same auditorium deciding wether its OK to marry an animal. Now, this might seem an absurd, but the idea of same sex marriage was in the same area of perception, several generations ago.

"Ours is a generation increasingly responsible for our own evolution."
-Pierre Teihard de Chardin
reply

(cjvdmade) said:

Thursday 1, July 2010, 1:22 pm

I define man as an in limited liability company of rival affects and emotions. All various efforts and emotions of human beings and groups are expressed and neutralized in the money form by the operation of the universal market, which 1 metaphorically call a "Global Social Engine

Neutralization means that qualitative differences are reduced to quantified unities. "All valuations, culture-bound and of a historically different development run the risk of being swallowed by an amoral poly perspective market-process.

The last geographic obstructions and cultural historical barriers are cleared to complete this social assignment of capitalism: the "Global Dimension": as a hound less universal market not being obstructed by inconvenient moral, racial and religious remnant values. The foundation of my metaphysics therefore stands:

God = the universal market in all its indeterminacy

Cees van der Made 1989
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 1, July 2010, 2:58 pm

Is it possible to decide what the law should be without entering into moral and religious controversies about the moral status of homosexuality and the purpose of marriage?

NO!

Truth, consequences and the indictment:

Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
reply

(DmitriPisartchik) said:

Friday 9, July 2010, 3:10 pm

And what exactly am I supposed to conclude from these recitations, beside the fact that some people at some time thought in some peculiar ways?

(arealplumber) said:

Friday 10, September 2010, 6:46 pm

Judge not...lest yee be judged. Are you so tight with God and so far removed from sin you have the ability to judge others actions? Try living the life and others will want to be like you or you can condemn people and no one will listen unless out of fear. God is love. From what I have read in the bible in Genesis God asked Adam not to eat from the tree(s) and then let him decide whether he would or not. Adam and Eve chose to and suffered the consequences. I do not however read anywhere where God re-approached Adam or Eve before they partook and asked them to reconsider their decision or course of action. I take from this that God is Pro-Choice. For God is Pro-Life for God yet allows others to decide for themselves whether they prefer to allow Gods' wisdom to direct their lives or their own. There will always be in this world those who oppose God in some form, that includes you. Just be glad they haven't made laws that cause you to hide your sinful self and parade around as infallible. May life never teach you the horrors of persecution for existence or choice.

(DmitriPisartchik) said:

Friday 9, July 2010, 3:08 pm

The underlying problem, from both sides of the debate, is precisely the selective recognition of marriage by the State: namely, one side (pro same-sex) disagrees with the current selective standard, ie that only a man and a woman couple count as married, and on the other side (con same-sex) agree only on the current selective recoginition of marraige.
Now, the reason why this is a moral problem is found in the fact that State recognition confirs with it certain (substantial) benefits and advantages to those fortunate enough to be recognized. As such we are faced with the fundamental (potentially anyways) problem of justice: of the people that could recieve benefits from the State there the Haves and Have-nots, ie there is an unequal distribution of social resources.
The question that must be asked is this: Is the unequal distribution unequitable? Do those that have (and, similarly, those that have not) deserve their share?
Is it fair, is it just or right that the State confirs special benefit and advantage to those who marry the opposite sex, but denies this those who marry the same sex?
If we reflect on this, the answer seems quite clear: The State ought not, as a matter of justice, favor heterosexual couples over and above homosexual couples. There are simply no morally relevant difference on which to hang the justification for differential treatment.
reply

(otisbird) said:

Sunday 11, July 2010, 4:39 pm

I recall in the episode on same sex marriage that when the subject of masturbation (love of self) was brought up, someone postulated that marriage to oneself should be legally recognized by the government. Well, I just read on the website freewillastrology.com, that author Rob Brezsny married hundreds of people to themselves at the Plastic Chapel during the Burning Man festival in the summer of 2001. The ecstatic ritual culminated just an hour before the Brezsny himself was burned on Saturday night, September 1. An excerpt from his website reads "As the moon rose over the black rocks, the desert air shivered with the sounds of hundreds of blissed-out rapture hounds shouting out the vow "I am a fucking genius" as per Brezsny's instruction." Sounds like a LOT more fun than most weddings I've been invited to. And I have to wonder, are all those people still married? If so, maybe they have something to teach both heterosexual and same-sex married couples about how to make love last.
reply

(Urth) said:

Monday 9, August 2010, 10:37 am

Marriage is a contract. Any number of people of any gender should be able to negotiate such contract and the consequences of breaking it. If any of those people wish to participate also on a religious ceremony, that's their beeswax.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 15, August 2010, 8:52 am

是的，保持中立，不参与而可以体验不同的观念甚至生活，这就是我们应当体味公正的方法，只有不断地碰撞前进中，我们才能创造出价值树中最茁壮的一颗，我们该如何用公正的眼光或者方法来判定某项事物，这取决于我们生活的环境，传统，道德，或者法律。随着地域的不同或者时间的变迁，我们的公正在以不同的方式展现，存在着的就是公正，我只能这样说。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, August 2010, 10:30 pm

保持中立课程中已经对此作出解释怀疑主义事不关己的大旗高高挂起以旁观者的身份看待事情因为自己并不是事件的直接参与者事件发生的结果不能影响到自己无论结果是好或者是坏但是如果事件发生的结果是好的呢大多数人会直接考虑事件的结果如果发展方向朝坏的方向发展那么百分之99的人会选择中立这又是课程中所说的结果主义所以Sandel教授与学生互动时会让学生以参与者的心理参加讨论课程中已经有同学巧妙的回避话题我认为道德不能以人数判定其对错因为道德不存在对错就像课程中所说死一人活三人在直接面对这个问题时多数人回答的苍白无力但是在历史上真是发生时有很多因素伴随着则多数人赞同认为这是道德允许的这或许是这些因素约束了道德还是这两个是相辅相成的那换个话题 100人死49人活51人这时又该怎样以道德考虑这件事情话题说回来当我们是这100人之中的一人呢这时我们会考虑我会是49人之中的还时51人之中的但是我再加几个个因素在战争时期 100人被敌军追击 49人受伤 51完好 100人撤退必定会因为这49人带慢速度因而会全军覆没但是将这49人留下51人会脱困而出但是49人会被围歼这又怎么考虑这件事情如果不是49人受伤而是20人呢会不会道德上心理上会好受一些
？再换个因素因为战争是很不稳定的因素在一个小岛上小岛上的火山就要爆发船只能载51人剩下49人必定等死这时呢如果有4人船只能载3人而留一人
些因素决定了人们的道德判断我认为道德在方向上还有不同如果对象是自己道德
成为自我安慰的因素道德的约束力完全在于参与者自己对于道德的理解课程表现出了不同人的道德标准不同也就是说在人数上是不具备约束力的从而道德就失去了意义课程开始说的公正法律存在绝对的公正因为法律具有统一的约束性抛去法律道德没有统一的约束力也就失去了公正所以我认为在讨论事件里的道德时因人而异这时又回到话题开始死1人活3人如果这件事多数人在道德上认为是对的少数人认为是错的那么这件事件的道德定义就是对的所以课程又说明一个问题少数服从多数在道德上也成立历史上很多哲学家在讨论道德时往往会被推翻所以这是一个会无限循环的话题
-遥

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 17, September 2010, 8:34 am

GOD set a trap. Example: If there’s a rat problem, then set a trap and bait it with cheese.

Let’s review and examine Romans 1:26 with the Strong.

Rom 1:26 For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806 forG1063 evenG5037 (G3739) theirG848 womenG2338 did changeG3337 theG3588 naturalG5446 useG5540 intoG1519 thatG3588 which is againstG3844 nature:G5449

Here is the clue: For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846”

G3860 παραδίδωμι paradidomi (par-ad-id'-o-mee) v.
1. to surrender, i.e yield up, intrust, transmit
[from G3844 and G1325]
KJV: betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend
Root(s): G3844, G1325

G846 αὐτός autos (au-tos') p/p.
1. self
{reflexive pronoun used of the third person (alone or in the comparative G1438), and of the other persons (with the proper personal pronoun)}
[from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind (backward))]
KJV: her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which
Compare: G848
See also: G1438, G109

G1519 εἰς eis (eis) prep.
1. to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time
2. (figuratively) to or into a purpose (result, etc.)
{also in adverbial phrases; Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively)}
[a primary preposition]
KJV: (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, continual, far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, of one mind, never, of, (up-)on, perish, set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with

This sin is not being restrained by GOD anymore. So the same sex marriage laws will pass. Victory and success is assured. State by state or nation by nation, there will be victory. But a trap is being prepared for these people. The next set of verses show how GOD is setting them up, just like an undercover FBI sting.

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

What usually happens when there is victory? You win. Its time for a victory party or a gay pride parade. We are the winners. We won, you lost. But something happens:

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

(Isa 13:13) Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

(Rev 16:18) And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

(Jer 25:33) And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, October 2010, 3:55 am

谢谢，让我对圣经里律法的认识也有了更新！
reply

(f343441099) said:

Monday 1, November 2010, 1:01 am

超级多的中国人。
共产党万岁！
在以马列主义毛泽东思想、邓小平理论、江泽民的三个代表以及胡锦涛同志在九二讲话的精神为依托的指导下，
郑重地宣布，
这层楼被共产党人所占领！！！
Long live republic of China！！！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, November 2010, 9:49 pm

foolish !

(nafesa) said:

Monday 1, November 2010, 9:52 am

Why I can`t see the video?
reply

(15285647630) said:

Thursday 4, November 2010, 7:31 am

we would like you to talk about Marxism and Communism.It should be interesting for Chinese.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, November 2010, 11:04 pm

Marxism is really a great theory that impressed me deeply,however Marxism and Communism mentioned by the communist party is by and large hypocrisy which did not accomplish the mission of eradicating hierarchy. By hierarchy I don't mean institutionally but rather conceptually.I think Justice is just what's missing in my country. But I don't think that's something Marx has prepared for.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, November 2010, 11:09 pm

I think Marx Would oppose Kant's denial of taking empirical values into consideration while human ends are concerned in the same way that he attacks metaphysics. Because to think independent of it's history about things exist is inappropriate because according to Marx everything is interconnected both in time and space.To ignore it's history is to deny the fact that things are what they are is to some extent because of what they were in the history as also applies to human race. And as human species we will finally agaree upon some ends even it may seem empirical. It's true that the ideas about good may differ among different communities but there are certain empirical ends all communities can share not by contingency but due to the fact that we are all humans and what we all share is human experience which defines and defined by the fact that we are an exclusive species among all forms of life. And based on these fundamental principles that as mankind we all agree on can we justify certain rights that originated from different contingencies that struck different cultures. This is simply my own idea according to my personal understanding of Marx. Because this is consistent with Darwinism for which Marx has his special regard.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, November 2010, 9:07 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, November 2010, 10:05 pm

I think Marx Would oppose Kant's denial of taking empirical values into consideration while human ends are concerned in the same way that he attacks metaphysics. Because to think independent of it's history about things is inappropriate. Because according to Marx everything is interconnected both in time and space.To ignore it's history is to denial the fact that things are what they are is to some extent because of what they were as also applies to human race. And as human species we will finally agaree upon some ends even it may seem empirical. It's true that the ideas about good may defer among different communities but there are certain empirical ends all communities can share not by contingency but due to the fact that we are all all humans and what we all share is human experience which defines and defined by the fact that we are an exclusive species among all forms of life. And based on these fundamental principles that as mankind we all agree on can we justify certain rights that originated from different contingencies that struck different cultures. This is simply my own idea according to my personal understanding of Marx. Because this is consistent with Darwinism for which Marx has his special regard.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Comments (16)

(Aristole) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 3:57 pm

All the past generation philosophers lived their time and day Yes their contribution has to be admired. However,that doesn't mean all fit to this time. As human all cetizen of earth has to follow some principle to creat hormonies life so to speak in order to bring his/her contribution, for the ulitimate pleasure or happiness of all Not only for Majority. As long as we ignored the need of the minorities we can't have a sane civilized society on this planet.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 9:16 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 2:04 pm

Thanks for the class. I hope Harvard will do more public education for those who can not afford to go there and get the degree. Live long learning should be a public good.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 7:54 pm

A 67 year old, roman Catholic, monogamus, heterosexual male, married to 1 wife for 45 years, career military type had a great time hanging out with, and listening to, all of you. I will vote for Michael Sandel at every opportunity. I am sorry only that the course had to end.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, December 2009, 1:43 am

This is great television and great education for all citizens worldwide.
Thank you so much!

Michele, from Italy
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 9:25 pm

Lol.

I never had someone had a good little discussion which really enriches your mind and not stress but philosophers and even i was interested being a critc myself of the notradum prophecy as i really believe in people predicting the future and how things are changing for a reason?

Ihave read a book can't remember author "First comes virture then moral obligation"

It comes naturally when you are a person who takes in everyone's piece of mind but still a sad conclusion of what really is harmony?Is it psychology?

Steffi Kenwright
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 9:29 pm

Hello,

we have are unique styles of percepting things as i am a fan of astrology and dates of birth. So could it be genetic, the way we are brought up (cognitive) people we grew up with? i have clever eager brothers who are determined for success? do we think it's about our circumstances? Is it about who's in power?

Steffi Kenwright
From Liverpool
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, December 2009, 3:33 pm

I enjoy the series so much. Thanks for offering it to public. I wish there would be more of these or like these to come. Thanks.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 20, January 2010, 3:40 am

Marriage is definitely personal between two or more people. The government's role I think is to ensure rights of participant(s) in the affair is protected in the event of divorce or disagreement or even fraud. If legalising marriage (gay) allows that to happen i do not object because I believe that everyone has a right to pursue happiness without being judged for their religion, creed, race, politics, sex, etc. Therefore for government to represent a specific moral in this matter is like taking sides and therefore do not represent justice very well.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 8, February 2010, 12:20 am

Thank you Professor Sandel and the students of Harvard. I have followed this lecture series with great interest and thought the discussion on marriage equality interesting but lacking in legal substance. I would urge everyone to read the Goodridge case in its entirety. Understand it and you will probably know more about civil rights law than 90% of Americans. I also urge you to take a look at "Making Sense of Prop. H8 as Iowa Steals California’s Cool" and "Prop H8 a House of Cards" at Salon.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 9:47 pm

Thank you Professor Sandel and the students of Harvard.我觉得公平都是相对的，起码这世界上没有绝对的公平，公平并不是像两个苹果，你一个我一个。就算是苹果也不会完全一样。这样公平便有了标准，在一定范围内，人们认可他是公平的。利益最大化应该考虑人性化，这更符合人们的心理，但是我觉得应该可以损失小部分人的利益而满足大多数人的利益。可以对少部分人进行其他补偿以求公平。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, March 2010, 6:06 am

Thankyou for sharing with us ! that is funny ,it will take me three days to think about it ,unless i donot neeed sleep and eat.hehe!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, April 2010, 3:42 am

讲来讲去，还不是一样，不过讲的很吸引人，不像国内的老师讲的那样令人想睡觉！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, July 2010, 9:51 am

是的，很不错，我们大学的老师上课就是照着书本上的东西从头到尾讲一遍，然后就下课了，I'm really enjoy Professor Sandel's class.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, July 2010, 7:23 am

I see this teather's present.I acquisition very much. Thanck you,teacher.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 10, September 2010, 9:03 pm

我真的很看不懂，我的英语不行啊
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Comments (62)

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 23, December 2009, 4:50 am

I watched the show from California for the first time, for some reason I was impressed and I was glued to the tube and ever audio tape the program. I like to thank you for instilling in the next generation of leaders the idea of what is right, wrong and morality just in our society and world...I'm not a educated person, however, I've been blessed to have been in the company of those who are more privilege than I. I'm from Philadelphia, Pa. where most people don't have a chance to grow or learn, or even understand the cultural diversities of the world. Thank you, I will, in my Golden Years, continue to listen and learn. The internet is very new to me and is a wonderful means of learning and communications...Although, I'm a retired media crafts man who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'm still learning which is a life process. One of my sayings is: "I rather were out than rust out". Peace:)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 7:43 am

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 9:48 pm

What does same sex marriage have to do with "infidelity plaguing heterosexual marriages, or the erosion of the structure that has ensured the survival of our society"? There's absolutely no connection here for me. You are randomly blaming here. There's no real connection. Heterosexual people will continue to marry and make babies regardless of whether same sex couples are respected and given a marriage certificate or not. These things are unrelated. This line of thought must be based in fear because it just doesn't seem at all reasonable.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 9:54 pm

Marriage is no longer just a Christian institution. It's a modern social institution and it's meaning for many is not religious. I received a marriage certificate from the state not from a church. The church use to believe that the universe revolved around the earth. That's no longer true either.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 9:57 pm

Homosexual couples also provide loving stable families which are the backbone of our society. They are productive and creative members of our society as worthy of equality as any of us.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 7:42 pm

As a single, atheist female who has an underdeveloped uterus, therefore cannot procreate, I think marriage, same sex or opposite sex should not be "regulated" or recognized by the government for no other reason but for collection of census information...we must keep in mind that the government has held this position because of so many christians in politics, including our founding fathers. Also, because the catholic church (or other christians) have only accepted heterosexual marriage so they can create more catholics (or other christians). Ever ask yourself why does the government allow a tax break for married couples and the more children you have, the greater the tax break...what about separation of church and state, hmmm?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 12:56 pm

Your reasons can be seen as selfish, and thus infringing on the rights of others. The question facing or society is not whether or not homosexuality can/will be eradicated. It is clear that it cannot be...however, the recognition of such a lifestyle will have lasting effects. In other words, the recognition of marriage/family has ensured the survival of generations, you are a result of a heterosexual relationship. Without that recognition by government, our society may have been in worse condition that it's currently in. Your comment referring to Catholics/Christians clearly is flawed, seeing that you yourself have no affiliation with either institution. Different countries different tax rules, however, tax break given to families cannot be used as valid argument to prove your point. If thats the case then an individual has the right to ask for a tax break. Politically that would be stupid. Families on average incur more expenses than a single person, hence the financial contribution of a family will in most cases be greater than that of a comparable singe person.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 10:14 pm

I love this show and this site. I never went to college because of lack of money and because I change my mind too much to major in anything. I love this philosophy stuff though.(and truthfully, personal feeling thinking I'm not "smart" enough) This is a great way to get the wheels going in my brain and let me know I am smart enough to take part in conversations with people on subjects like these. Thank you so much. : )
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 4:24 am

It is odd how what was disgusting and immoral 25 years ago...has now become acceptable and rather trendy. I have a very good friend who is gay and was an "in the closet" homosexual while also being a city councilman. We had this discussion one evening and,of course, it was rather awkward. I simply asked why he preferred men over women. We had a very open conversation (fueled by vino) and he knew I was not a fan of same-sex/gay/homosexual...whatever you want to call it.... I asked him if he ever thought his "inclination" was strange, or did it simply come naturally. His answer was not the typical "ever since I was young...born this way, etc". It was more complicated. Then I asked him if he thought traditional marriage was worthy of respect by the gay community. Enough respect to allow us our "naming rights". The title of "marriage" remaining the way it has always been, versus the title of civil partnership, or civil union. He thought about it and agreed that maybe that would eventually be the compromise. However, even though I find homosexuality deviant and perverse, I also recognize that there is quite a decent likelihood that we will soon discover a genetic predisposition. I know that there is a good chance that science will soon prove that some folks are truly "born gay". I still find it to be repugnant. Not because of any religion. I don't have a religion. I simply think that we were created in a fashion so as to be a match for eachother. Not necessarily just for procreation only. Call it a simplistic logo argument.

Obviously, I will be attacked for being "HomoPhobic". Fine. Throw your stones at me and call me a neanderthal. But know this. Even as you take comfort in the name calling and the "look at that idiot stuck in the past"......You should know that there are many...many...VASTLY MANY MORE out there like me and we are saddened at what we feel is a slow denigration of morals. Society seems like a bunch of lemmings marching toward the sea of "equal rights".(as defined by the ACLU...hurl)

If two people love eachother and they live as a couple, then I certainly think they should have the rights of a family member. They should have the same rights of inheritance and power of attorney. After all, if my brother turned out to be gay and he wanted to have a companion in his final days...or throughout his days, who am I to question him and his right to happiness as he sees fit. But I have a right to my opinion, just as he has a right to his.

People. Is it too much to ask that you allow us heterosexuals keep our marriage and you simply seek another name ?

Well...now I must go listen to Barbra Streisand and redecorate my living room with a photo of Liza while I watch Yentl....in the background the broadway musical "RENT" plays while my quiche cooks in the oven. (-:
....(just funnin ya)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 11:29 am

I often wonder why people are so put off about the grossness of homosexual sex. How often do you spend time thinking about or watching your friends, family, or neighbors having hetersexual sex? Do you approve of all the different sexual positions, or only certain types with the lights turned off? Personaly, I find it gross to think about my parents or old people or unattractive people engaging in sex. Does that mean that they shouldn't do it because of my discomfort? Or is it more a problem in my head? The point is that sexuality is a private activity. As long as people aren't doing it publically, I don't see why anyone should object. Particularly when it involves people that you have never met or seen.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 11:31 am

This site and discussion have been very valuable to me as an educator. I do hope you will continue to post it here and to grow it as well! Thanks.
Teacher in MO.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 8:54 pm

I have some confusion with creating two different documents for opposite and same sex couples. You say that the two are different. Yes those two categories of people are different. Yet so are so many other types of people. So what exactly makes that difference worthy of a separate document? Any two people getting married most often want to for some different reason and many of the same reasons. Most basic is for a socially accepted union and in many circumstances the legal rights which come with that. What marriage means for most people isn't different because of sexual orientation but because the people are different. Should there be a separate certificate for blacks, or Asians, or midgets, or the infertile? Why just same sex couples for a different labeled certificate?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 9:17 pm

I've just finished watching this series of lectures, and I have enjoyed every minute. Thank you Prof. Sandel and to all who took part in making this series available to the public. I'm a better person and a better citizen now because of it. Thank you again.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 9:32 pm

There are many things in this society I find abhorrent. But my dislike of someone or something doesn't give the right to deny anyone something I reserve for myself. Tolerance is an important part of a free society. There is no harm in two people of the same sex getting married. As a heterosexual female I have no dislike or fear of anyone's attraction to the same sex. Other than religious indoctrination, I don't get those who oppose such relationships. I haven't heard an argument for their opposition that's worthy of denying an equal and respectful recognition of same sex marriage.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 10:48 pm

Those who get married just to be socially accepted or because of the legal rights associated with it should not get married in the first place. Marriage is not a business deal or some act ploy of social acceptance. It's really disturbing that individuals will strip such a sacred thing just to make and excuse to justify an action that will undermine the significance of marriage.

Tolerance has a limit...and unfortunately our society has taken up this philosophy of, however the underlying factor is pure selfishness. If it doesn't affect me "directly" then it's not my problem. Here are effects of tolerance, teenage pregnancy, adultery, etc. Civil unions have been created due to a number of tolerances. The funny thing is by the time these things directly affects us....the damage will be irreversible
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 5:53 pm

This lecture seems to be rather objective. Many thanks for making this knowledge public.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 11, January 2010, 8:36 pm

Thank-you, Professor Sandel, for your excellent facilitation. What a brilliant collaboration between Mr. Sandel and Harvard to help awaken individual potential and a greater sense of understanding....

Best regards,
Dale
Whistler, Canada
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 10:21 am

why doesn't my threads go through?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 10:38 am

Since some people in the class used their religious belief in their argumentation, I would like to add mine. As a muslim, the Koran tells us that being born as a homosexual is not a sin in itself. It is the act of homosexual intercourse which constitutes a sin. If we entertain the notion that all homosexuals are born homosexual then they cannot be faulted with sin since we do not control all attributes and characteristics which we are born with.

I basically heard two arguments FOR the legalization of homosexual unions. (1)Two consenting adults should be allowed to commit themselves to a union, (2)It is not the place of the State to intervene in any act of union. Given the two arguments above, I would like to know how individuals who support same-sex unions reason with regard to incest-unions? I have hitherto not come across any atheist, agnostic or secular arguments against incest-unions. Fact of the matter is that even atheists are so entrenched in their religious societies and historical past that people usually do not even think of incest-unions. The only argument I have heard against incest-unions is that such unions could produce a defected child with basically no chance of survival while at the same time endangering the life of the women who would bare that child. However, there are several (secular) actions we could take in order to mend for such a consequence. For one, we could enact a law that prohibits incest-unions from producing a child, secondly if a child would be produced it could be aborted (after all most secular individuals have nothing against abortion), thirdly we could also stipulate that if two individuals want to engage in an incest-union then one of the partners has to undergo sterilization. This would not mean that they would be unable to have children at all, since they could readily adop or have someone act as a suggorate (again, fully compatible with secular notions). Furthermore, this obsessive preoccupation with the possibility of a defected child beeing born neglects that an incest-union could be between two individuals of the same sex - a homosexual incest-union. In such a case it would be impossible to have childen. And to add to this, most individuals who would commit themselves to an incest-union would probably be aware of the risk of having a baby and would most probably refrain from ever procreating a baby. After all, who are we to decide who should be allowed to engage in a union or not? If two consenting adults would like to engage in a union, who are we to tell them that they should not love each other? I mean, that is usually arguments put forth with regard to same-sex marriage, so why not extend that to incest-unions and homosexual incest-unions? What is your take on this?

Thanks
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 9:48 pm

I do think there are valid reasons to disallow incestuous marriages. Forced sterilization is extreme, for what if later the person wants to divorce and remarry. Are they forever barred because of one choice? But even ignoring the problem of defective children, I would posit that modern psychology would tell us that incest is a corruption of normal familial ties. (I am not a psychologist, so please someone with more expertise speak to this.) However, same-sex attraction was once considered psychological disease, and is no longer, so perhaps in time our understanding will differ. For now though, I don't think mental health professionals believe incestuous love is truly on par with healthy attraction and love, as we know it.
In closing I hope (and beleive)that you are not using the incestuous case to invalidate the case for same-sex marriage. They are unrelated. Indeed, if one makes a case only for heterosexual marriage, he must still explain why incestuous marriage is wrong. Even if you say marriage should be between a man and a woman, you still must explain why that man and woman cannot be brother and sister.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 10:46 pm

Throughout history, marriage has been a union of man and woman, or in some cultures; man and child. The “unions” were performed according to cultural and religious beliefs of the community. However not all marriages were between consenting adults, in many cultures these unions were business deals made between families, in which both and the “church” profited in some way.
Our Founding Fathers made very clear when this country was conceived to separate church and state; however the churches influence on our rights and freedoms in this country is evident in many laws governing this nation. If we consider that all men are created equal and women as well; how can government deny the marriage of two people regardless of gender? Furthermore what exactly is the role of government in the institution of marriage, aside from the issue of divorce, when it is left up to the law to decide how to split the assets of the couple? Does the government have any authority in a marriage of a man and woman that it would not have if they were of the same gender? If not, then why does government have a choice as to who is to be married.
I see government as a collector of proceeds in a matter that it (government) has no authority to exercise a set of moral standards imposed by religion. A marriage in this country is between two consenting adults for whatever reason they see fit to be married. Peoples religious freedom is theirs to practice, not to impose on others.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 15, January 2010, 8:56 am

Well, I don't even see the episode. What happened?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, February 2010, 8:11 pm

these episodes are widespread.
even many chinese students like me would like to see them.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 16, January 2010, 7:26 am

Ironic for me that the class ends on an issue I don't care about. However I do like how issues were used to ground discussion of philosophical principles rather than simply as ends in themselves.

Thank you very much for posting this class online. I found it through the TED links and was very glad that I did.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 16, January 2010, 1:05 pm

Loved the "libertarian discussion...but I have a thought for the anti-libertarians...isn't your privileged education at Harvard something you've worked very hard for -- and earned..a cherished "possession" if you will?? so, how would you feel if "the state" came along and said that 50% of you had to give up your seats to those less fortunate....alan bromley
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 7:15 pm

Regarding the spelling champs reason for telling the judges that he misspelled. While he said he did so because he didnt want to feel like a slime. While it sounds like that he did so for a reason that benefits himself, his actual motivation is obviously that he would feel like a slime because he would than not be acting respecting humanity as an end, and therefore is consistent with Kant's concept of moral action
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 9:29 pm

I believe same-sex marriage proponents missed a great opportunity. The first student to speak against same sex marriage listed two reasons to give it legal recognition:
1. for procreation
2. to enhance and emphasize the union of the man and woman

Obviously, the first is not necessary. One need not be married to procreate in our country, and one need not procreate in order to get or remain married. The student admits as much, and says this is why he devised the second reason.
So, the second is the more important reason. I think he was trying to say that marriage is a stabilizing institution. When you marry someone, they commit to helping you, by caring for you when you are sick, supporting you when you lose your job, consoling you when a parent dies, and a million other small but powerful ways, and you do the same for them. We believe (and verify with studies) that this support makes a person's life better. And I think we extend that out to say it makes society better, stabilizing it in that happy people form a happier, more productive society.
Why, I ask the student, does he think a gay person would not desire and enjoy the same support? Homosexual want the same supportive relationship, and would not happier, more stable homosexuals be better for society as a whole? If marriage reenforces this union for a man and a woman, would it not do the same for two men or two women?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 1:17 pm

It may also strengthen the bond between my dog and me. Why then can't we be married. He will consent, he loves me, and wants to spend the rest of his life with me.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 20, January 2010, 9:07 pm

If you hear your dog consenting to marrying you, even bestiality might not be your most pressing problem. My advice: treat the voices, then revisit the issue.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 29, January 2010, 1:15 pm

Thanks for sharing this classes with the world! For us who were not born with all the possibilities to go to Harvard and actually be there in a class, this is a great way to learn and to feel taken into consideration. I really appreciate this. Cheers from a Venezuelan.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 31, January 2010, 3:14 pm

The fundamental problem with Rawls' Theory of Justice is that is begins with a non-empirical conceoptualization of rights and value; this is at odds with legal positivism that defines our current social system of assets. You could argue that this does not detract from Rawls' framework. His ideal theory of justice is based on natural right and not positive right. If this is the case, consider Strauss' definition of natural right based on a theism that establishes rights and value based not on the original position but on theocratic fiat. In this sense Rawls' thoughts about what is just is a footnote to Hobbs and Locke and and not something that, say, our founding fathers would acknowledge.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 2:54 am

Thanks to Harvard for making the lectures public - I really enjoyed it!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, February 2010, 1:13 am

i can leave a message here,that's good ~~the public course of harvard is really a good thing ~we can get much useful things ~
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, February 2010, 10:41 am

cool
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 12:46 am

I am not a harvard student. However, there is a all encompasing truth to this issue which has already been resolved. Problem, man has gotten away from truth as handed down by Almighty God. Before you discount the Bible as the authoritative word for "the good life," we would all do well by truely searching for truth. Whether you beleive that Jesus Christ is God and truely did die for your sins in your place so that you could have a union with God, you will one day confess, he is God. Last point, marriage is a union created by God, not man. Therefore it is not up to man to attempt to redefine it or attempt to change it's original intention. Read your bible. God's Blessings upon you all:)
P.S. Why would you want to theorise when the truth has already been made known? Read, The case for Christ, Lee Stroble
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 2:50 am

You've already said what I want to say. I 'm voting for your opinion here. What the whole course is discussing reminds me Psalms 2:1--"Why are the nations in an uproar, and the peoples devising a vain thing?" The answers to all the questions raised are clearly there in the bible. However, I think this course provides a good opportunity for people to think.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 11:50 am

Please stop quoting from religious books as fact. There is a wide gap between belief and fact. Just because I believe that UFOs are real, quoting out of book about UFOs, regardless of the number of people who may agree or disagree, does not make it a fact. The particular Leap of Faith that you have apparently taken is only one of many possible avenues. Consider that others may have a different basis for their beliefs, which are equally valid to yours.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 1:50 am

Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.

Alfredo Inoa
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 10:43 pm

i have been a marriage counselor for forty years and i am particularly aware that what is held as a social understanding and what is held in particular marriage as the telos of marriage often is radically at odds with each other. i think that the social understanding is not really based on the conscious telos of marriage but comes to be shaped by many many other forces including economic ones. the marriage contract is always both a conscious and unconscious contract at every level. all we can hope for is an ongoing discussion which brings us closer to our many faceted motivations for trying to find a place to put a stake in the ground. what then must be honored is dialogue and accept that there will always be a backdrop which will be less then universal but will function as a starting point for discussion.
and note, we are not having discussions about legalizing murder (in the usual sense of the word, not including ambiguous cases such as war or abortion). why is that? perhaps we must have faith that we engage in dialogue when something is really necessary to explore.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 10:28 am

Question: Equal protection under the law (14th Amendment) or majority rule based on 'millennia of moral teaching'?

What is the tiping point for each side --- reason or emotion?

Who will throw the first stone?

Love, life, laughter, longevity; family, friends, faith, finality ...

Are you sure?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, February 2010, 11:33 pm

视频放不了
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 10:54 pm

大哥，说英语

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, February 2010, 11:40 pm

很期待你们可以有中文版的视频，在我周围有很多人关心你们所讲的内容！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 11:08 pm

Many Chinese College students like us are very interested in your classes.But it's really a pity that we can't see your videos.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, February 2010, 8:44 am

There are some videos on youku with both Chinese and English subtitles which are useful for you guys
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 23, February 2010, 11:58 am

我喜欢教授喜欢听课外国的思想就是不一样我是中国人说一句感谢的话
THANK YOU！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 4, March 2010, 11:28 pm

You really can not stand.you know ,We come from different cultural backgrounds.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, March 2010, 8:26 am

不同的视角但是基本的思想是没有大的出入的...

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 1, March 2010, 8:26 am

To 13/160: Never confuse the spec of the processor with the OS. You can have a blindingly fast processor, and it will do you absolutely no good if your software is buggy. Clearly, the part of your OS that understands human error (ie, typos) and humility (which is, as you will find out when you're perhaps 23, 33, 43 or older, much to your embarrassment and chagrin) are clearly deficient and buggy.

Hit the reset button and try again.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 8, March 2010, 8:23 am

I 've just started watching this program yesterday,since my english is not so good,i have hardly finished the episode one, here comes the question about cannibalism:if the cabin boy died because of his weakness,Duliy(or some else name)and others didn't eat him until he die,how to see this?
sometimes i don't really see the difference between human beings and other animals,why no one feel guilty because he kill
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 8, March 2010, 8:26 am

animals?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 3:21 am

i learn more from this speach this leason .so i want meet more people who concern this who want talk about it.i want make a team which we can exchange our thoughs
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 3:22 am

it is my e-mail chenghaipeng2009@126.com ,i am here to wait you .
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, March 2010, 12:39 am

All Chinese?
Harvard education is what to what?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, April 2010, 11:15 am

不错，不错！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, April 2010, 3:37 am

讲来讲去，还不是一样，不过讲的很吸引人，不像国内的老师讲的想睡觉！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, April 2010, 2:57 am

好
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 1, May 2010, 5:22 am

thank you harvard and professor sandel! look forward to more lectures! maria
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, June 2010, 12:16 am

The problem I have with arguments surrounding topics that are controversial by nature of one's religion is that we have let our religious leaders tell us what to think and what not to think. It is my preference to value virtue in decision making on a societal level and let religion dictate my personal decisions.

As such, from a societal standpoint, thinking from a pure level of the 4 Core virtues, I can find nothing from a societal perspective of a virtuous person that would prohibit same sex marriages. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with same sex marriage.

From a religious standpoint in my own personal life, it is a choice I will not make. But I do not have the right to extend my personal beliefs onto others if said beliefs deprive them of their own rights. My belief in Christianity dictates my personal choices. My belief in philosophy and Virtue dictates my societal choices.

I firmly believe that we must allow our belief in philosophical ideals (in my case an adherence to the 4 Core Virtues as a guide for how to live within any society) to trump our religious beliefs. We have to remember, though we may fervently believe our religious teachings, not everyone agrees. The concept of personal liberty allows for this difference and it MUST be respected and tolerated. Therefore, I cannot let a religious belief guide my debate about societal issues. If I do, I am no longer accepting another person's right to their beliefs as I am then forcing my belief system on them.

When our nation collectively enforces a societal issue stance based on religious doctrine, we are practicing tyranny; tyranny of the majority. And tyranny is the enemy of freedom. We must allow freedom to be as absolute as possible. If we restrict freedoms based on our religious doctrine, we are societal dictators.

scott_reed_39@yahoo.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, August 2010, 9:08 am

good
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, October 2010, 2:01 am

The first feeling is Ok, but I feel I have learned nothing, if this teaching for a long time, I feel very boring.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, October 2010, 1:57 am

I am a student from central south university of China.Thank you!Your speeches are very good!太给力了哈哈！
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (5)

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, February 2010, 11:52 pm

Desire for state recogntion of same sex marriage is essentially an economic issue. Same sex couples desire the same employment and taxation benefits of heterosexual couples. Opposition to according this equality is based on what it will cost society in economic terms. Secular and non secular recognition of same sex union is available without state sanction.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, July 2010, 5:32 am

关于哲学，我们在你们还是猴子的时候已经开始研究了
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, July 2010, 1:58 am

您这样说没意思，无关于时间或者深浅，每个人都有思考的权利…
看到用汉语出现的这样的话，感到一点汗颜

by下天

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 25, July 2010, 6:38 am

Why love didnt came into discussion? Why is love ommited in this matter? Is is a less important factor for getting married does it have less value than procreation or sex?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 28, September 2010, 8:48 am

很多问题其实在马克思哲学里都有相关的讨论，只是前人的思想我们未必愿意吸收
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (5)

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, February 2010, 11:52 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, July 2010, 5:32 am

关于哲学，我们在你们还是猴子的时候已经开始研究了
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, July 2010, 1:58 am

您这样说没意思，无关于时间或者深浅，每个人都有思考的权利…
看到用汉语出现的这样的话，感到一点汗颜

by下天

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 25, July 2010, 6:38 am

Why love didnt came into discussion? Why is love ommited in this matter? Is is a less important factor for getting married does it have less value than procreation or sex?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 28, September 2010, 8:48 am

很多问题其实在马克思哲学里都有相关的讨论，只是前人的思想我们未必愿意吸收
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Comments (123)

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 7, March 2010, 8:57 am

真的很不错~呵呵，其实中国也有很多类似的大师~~
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, March 2010, 6:08 am

I think this is good.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, March 2010, 1:46 pm

Marriage is a state run institution for the economic reasons. Individual's financial rights are protected by the courts, therefore the state cannot separate itself from the marriage issue. With thatestablished, there are economic rights that need to be protected for homosexual couples too, why should they be denied of that service from the state?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 12:54 am

Good
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, March 2010, 10:52 am

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 13, March 2010, 12:46 am

thanks for your wonderful speech!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 13, March 2010, 6:07 am

这才叫真正的大学和真正的思考，相比之下，中国的应试教育真的太害人了！多希望有一天自己的国家也可以有这样的真实的、充实的环境！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 19, March 2010, 10:37 am

China should break up the ban of sufing some website first.....

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 18, March 2010, 7:17 am

the wirespeed is so slowly,kakaka!i am crazy!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 19, March 2010, 8:47 am

看到有一些中文回复哦，呵呵，这个课挺好的。
Justice isn't a simple word to me now, seeing the lessons.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 19, March 2010, 10:43 am

The website give us the space to reexaming justice,it's the real means of the university...and it's why there is no firstclass university in People's Republic of China...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 20, March 2010, 4:53 am

课程确实不错。但不觉得哈佛有多高深。不能得出“相比之下，中国的应试教育真的太害人了”。qin7
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 20, March 2010, 8:55 am

I hope there will be more of such lectures from Harvard. They allow us to learn alot.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 20, March 2010, 11:18 am

thanks,
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 21, March 2010, 6:36 am

it's very cool ！ I like it ！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, March 2010, 2:55 am

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 26, March 2010, 1:55 am

I've learned something in your lesson,thank you very much!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 26, March 2010, 7:44 am

讲的太棒了，课程确实不能。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 29, March 2010, 10:12 am

What is the rule of religion/s in providing justice ?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, April 2010, 7:01 pm

it is not anyone's except the said person's, it they wish to marry a person of the same gender. if there is love present, what is the problem? it may not be the most common, and i, being religious, believe it is wrong. but taking the big view, i think as i said...what is the problem? why is it banned? why, if you believe this is normal, must your beliefs be banned, and publicized to ashame you? a person is a person, you are you, and your beliefs are your beliefs.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, April 2010, 7:10 am

倫理観が多様化する現代のグローバル社会に於いて、結婚は生物学的欲求から生じた異性間で行うものから精神的な愛情論に視点が移り、同性間についても同様に扱われるべきではないか？。生物学的課題の子孫を残す事についてどの様に解決し回答の着地点を見出すのか？人工授精もあり、その他、細胞組織培養によるクローン技術も進展して・・・。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, October 2010, 2:11 am

写的神马东东？有人能翻译下不？

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, April 2010, 11:10 pm

这样的课程真的挺棒的，可是在我们中国，这样的教学方式是没有的
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 13, April 2010, 11:23 am

慢慢会有的，中国的研究生教学也是以讨论为主的！

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, April 2010, 1:55 am

GooD！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, April 2010, 2:45 am

在这里居然看到很多留言是中文的晕了
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, April 2010, 5:16 am

Why can't I see the video?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, April 2010, 3:30 pm

http://thegraph.org - debate the truth of statements and reach a consensus with others
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 13, April 2010, 3:21 am

很好的政治哲学课程！逻辑性很强！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, April 2010, 8:17 pm

很好很强大啊！到处都有中国人的身影！！！haha
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, April 2010, 9:09 am

看过这些视频后，才知道什么是真正的大学和真正的教育。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, April 2010, 5:04 am

thank you for bringing me so much
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, April 2010, 2:47 am

以案例引出问题，以问题激发讨论，以智慧点燃智慧。原来哲学与现实那么近，我怎么在大学里没有这样的感受呢？原来……不过，一切都会好起来的。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 24, April 2010, 5:16 pm

This was a very iformational lecture. It was also interesting to hear the various opinions of the variety of student. I found myself agreeing with one student then also agreeing with an opposing idea from another! In the end I will say I do agree with one of the females from the video-excuse me for not remembering her name. She said that the civil union between two people should not be banned by the government by imposing Catholic beliefs. There are many different religions in the world, and there are some peopl who are not religious at all. Religious beliefs should not drive legal decisions.

Javont'e C. Rookwood
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, April 2010, 10:56 pm

interesting
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 5, May 2010, 8:44 am

Да здравствует Китай
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 7, May 2010, 12:18 pm

As to people trying to divorce religion and justice, they need to investigate our country's Judeo Christian heritage. It is not a coincidence that liberty, freedom and justice are bedrock Christian values. Look up "justice" in your Bible concordance.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 8, May 2010, 9:00 am

I like this professor!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 11, May 2010, 3:23 am

heyy, can smb help? why i cant see videos???
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 12, May 2010, 1:48 am

An amazing class to question thinking itself. I love following these debates and the professor is truly enlightened. We need more people in government like him rather than the bickering about their opposing views in Washington than negotiating.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 16, May 2010, 7:52 am

I like it very much
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 16, May 2010, 11:39 pm

why not chinese I'm notunderstanding what he said but in china have that man speach.i don'k konw what i said sorry us
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 23, May 2010, 1:56 am

why can't I watch it??
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 23, May 2010, 10:20 am

why i could not watch the online courses...how should the Pc be equipped...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 31, May 2010, 7:59 pm

These is antoher way to watch it.You can download them in bt resouce.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, June 2010, 7:32 am

the lessons are fantastic!I adore the heated atmosphere of discussion dealing with the issue about life justice
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, June 2010, 12:56 pm

很有哲理
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 2:52 am

very excellent argument ...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 3:59 am

why i cannot watch the episodes on my PC? what's the problem?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, October 2010, 2:37 am

because you are Harmonyed

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 7:16 pm

hellow
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 7, June 2010, 5:36 pm

speaking of community, shared ideas and dialogue as constituents of a philosophical way of life, Prof. Sandel gives voice to Heraclitus and the 'logos' such communion brings to life.

"This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep." (Diels-Kranz 22B1)

"For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (Diels-Kranz 22B2)"
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, June 2010, 5:45 am

这个哲学问题是无法解决的，至少在现有人类的思维之内！在现行社会体制与道德标准下这永远是个盲点！ hewei_buter
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, June 2010, 9:48 pm

I'm very glad seeing this.Excellent indeed.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, June 2010, 6:24 am

很有深度！！！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, June 2010, 6:26 pm

The purpose of marriage is to insure that the future generation is nutured in such a manner that the child has the greatest chance of surviving and succeeding. Only recently has the tradition of marriage been perverted to mean a civil union. Same sex marriage is sterile and fruitless, its basis is civil only. The state should consider only the mingfulness of any any union to provide and protect the future generations. The legal or fiscal ramifications of any alternative union between a woman and a man must be kept separate and distinct.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 18, June 2010, 6:01 am

很不错！谢谢！Thanks!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 18, June 2010, 11:24 am

都是哪国的？all is what country？？
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 18, June 2010, 11:50 am

非常好的讨论，精彩的辩论，以交流的形式来将这些我们思考的问题与哲学联系在一起，非常好！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 25, June 2010, 7:53 am

嘟嘟,嗒嗒. 大家都来看稀奇啊
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 25, June 2010, 5:18 pm

Like many above, I would like to thank Harvard and Michael Sandel for providing this course free online.

For the specific topic of same-sex marriage, there is an important legal aspect. It would seem to me, I could be mistaken on this, that the advocators for same-sex marriage not only want a civil union, but that this civil union is recognized legally on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman, hence the word marriage rather than union.

Why is that distinction important? Well, if marriage between same-sex couples are the same as between a man and a woman, it means that a host of other rights which are laid upon the institution of marriage is conveyed. Examples are inheritance, adoption, medical matters (such as the right to decide to discontinue life support for a dying partner) along with other rights.

To me the discussion ought then to be: what is the justification of using the legal institution of marriage to decide factors as mentioned above?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, June 2010, 5:47 am

我觉得如果政府能把税收真正的用在人民身上还是可以接受的！但是不知用在哪里了！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, June 2010, 5:55 am

还有在分析问题的时候我的脑子里没有自己的观点，而且不知道怎么来分析问题，还有我的英语太不好了，希望有人能帮助我！中国的教育缺乏让人思考的环节！renhongchao2001@yahoo.com.cn,if you want to talk with me, write to me !
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, July 2010, 4:59 am

看懂一部分，难以和自己的生活联系起来
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, July 2010, 1:31 am

The video has been blocked on copyright grounds by NHK.
Could you get it unblocked
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, July 2010, 10:17 am

NHK is doing everyone a dis-service. Should their copyright not be void in the Utilitarian line of thought? This class never covered IPR, Professor Sandel should consider discussing IPR as well. Also once you treat Intellectual Property in writings and products, what is to save extant shared knowledge in other societies from those seeking to register it as their legal property, cases in point are Turmeric and Basmati, because all signatories to the WTO/GATT are required to accept the patents registered in other member nations at legal parity. Personally I think that the Western Patent system and IPR are a bunch of smelly stuff. According to Kant it would be immoral to take out patents because it will an act of pure self interest. The motivation of inventors before the current regime of IPR was not necessarily money and there was no dearth of inventors so please refrain from saying what the incentive will be if not money...

Thoughts anyone?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, July 2010, 12:52 pm

I think youtube removed the video due to copyright issues (might be a bug in their "auto-detection" script)... I can't see how Prof. Sandel's lecture can violate NHK's copyright (a Japanese media company). If any Harvard staff is monitoring this, please get this sorted out with youtube and make the series -- a wonderful public good -- complete again. Thanks.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, July 2010, 5:53 pm

It would appear that NHK has bought the series and has been broadcasting in Japan. You can find some of the lectures on YouTube with Japanese titles. That's probably what they're trying to block. However, I highly doubt that NHK has right to the original lectures and they should respect the producers of this lecture (Prof. Sandel, Harvard Univ, and WGBH) to distribute it freely on the internet.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, July 2010, 8:57 pm

Episode 12 is still blocked. I have enjoyed this lecture series and am very much looking forward to the concluding remarks. Does anyone have an alternate link?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, July 2010, 8:11 am

顶
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, July 2010, 9:52 am

I am happy to be able to watch Episode 12 again.And now videos with translation by NHK has be removed from Youtube.This might be what NHK actually wanted to do....
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, July 2010, 7:30 am

很好的视频，谢谢分享
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, July 2010, 11:53 am

all right .if anyone want to talk more ,contact me.my qq number is 152-2679-561
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 23, July 2010, 5:13 am

In my opinion i am in favour of same- sex marriage.We should treat everyone equalily.They did not do anything wrong.They have their choices.Given that they obey the law we are supposed to respect their own choice and let them lead theirlifestyle which they want.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, July 2010, 11:52 am

晕，好多中国的，天哪！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, July 2010, 9:41 pm

i think there is something wrong with the video.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, August 2010, 7:06 pm

oh my god i can't see it! what's wrong
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 3, August 2010, 10:41 am

很不错，I like it very much
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 9, August 2010, 2:12 am

我也蛮喜欢看的

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 8, August 2010, 1:02 pm

tonight it is my first time to see these videos ,they attract me a lot,i think they can give me deep thought about many things ,than you everyone whos provided!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 9, August 2010, 10:21 am

Marriage is a contract. If you want to make a contract recognised by the state you should be able to make it between any number of people of any gender (and with spelled out the consequences if broken). If those individuals decide to make religious vows, certainly they should be able to do so, but the state should have no say on that.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 12, August 2010, 9:38 pm

谢谢分享！
终于知道为什么越来越多的人想留学了！~~
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 24, September 2010, 10:35 am

那要看是到哪留学不要一概而论

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 18, August 2010, 9:55 am

자랑스러운 한국인은 나 밖에 없는건가?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 9, October 2010, 8:46 pm

草泥马

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, October 2010, 2:14 am

靠，棒子也来凑热闹！

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, August 2010, 5:50 am

nonsense……senseless!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, August 2010, 11:03 am

저도 한국인입니당~ㅋㅋ
강의 감명깊게 시청했습니다~^^
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 25, August 2010, 3:41 am

Thank you for sharing!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 26, August 2010, 8:51 am

It's a very good course.
Thanks for sharing it to us.
I've learned a lot.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 27, August 2010, 1:23 am

I really like this course.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 27, August 2010, 1:06 pm

I have watched all twelve episode of harvard justice. Ive even took note as those student, but Im not completely understanding everything. These vedios have inspired me to take justice course in the future; thanks harvard for a feel of college perspective and extra informaion on admissions. Addtion to college choice, Im try to get into an ivy league-starting with my english. :D
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 29, August 2010, 11:09 pm

i support utilitariansm. we use a wrong way to measure the value of a life. i think the less we have, the more it valued. it is just like a Y=1/x. if a person has to loss his live, the value is infinite. but i the other cases. everything can be valued
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 30, August 2010, 11:17 pm

我更倾向于倾听哲学的思考问题的方式
thank you
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 3, September 2010, 8:05 am

Yes,this was a very iformational lecture.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 6, September 2010, 3:09 am

I found it these last few days ,and i like it very much
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 10, September 2010, 12:24 pm

First I would like to point out this is how I see it so no need to correct me rather share how you see it with me.

As I see it you can not protect a class by creating a class. Some of you will understand this concept however some of you may be unfamiliar so please allow me to elaborate with you. In law a class may include those persons or things which may or may not be grouped together. We don't have the space to make it larger than this so if you disagree then you do, I acknowledge that.

As a melting pot society we have to make it clear to the rest of the world their beliefs are theirs and may work for them however in our society we coexist with the enemy of their beliefs and values. Our paradigm is required to consider the right of those persons to exist who have differing viewpoints and values from our own, our group(s) and from the majority. This gives rise to distinctions of individual thought and action in the dynamic stream of time. These considerations are what control the processes of choice for an individual with respect to the punitive or rewards of sharing such viewpoints or actions with other groups or individuals. Detrimental exposure for divulging a viewpoint or action freezes or chills an individuals belief in a humanistic view of themselves and/or the society in which they are attached. Detachment whether by personal choice or rejection from society creates the environment for conflict of many things.

Weighing then how to handle this matter should then fall to what is marriage for the individual? We either choose or not or are arranged to be or not married. So as an individual we subject ourselves to this choice and are subject then to its consequences. So as I see it it is a matter of choice to be or not to be married or arranged to be or not married. Our focus should then be on that choice.

Separating choice from execution is another matter altogether. I will take the road of qualifying choices and allow the choices to be made by the individual in their best interest even if that choice is given to others, with their consent, to make. As a society we would be obligated to define what is the definition of the choices available to the individual that give ultimate control of making that choice to the individual in whose life that choice ultimately controls and therefore also the consequences of that choice. With respect to marriage we can see a limited viewpoint which protects the viewpoint of the majority and conventional wisdom of the perceived ages. Challenging this majority or wisdom seems to be the debate at hand. However daunting that is what is at stake is higher than our personal paradigm. Rather than debate whether or not same sex marriage is the issue my belief is what is the definition of a entity who qualifies to be married. Once this definition is decided then marriage is simply an agreement between those two entities. This frees up the choice of the individual to autonomy with respect to their choices made and the "good life" they would chose for themselves with or without the consent of other individuals, entities, groups, minorities or majorities.

Practically implemented I would envision something along this:

"Any individual who is of sound mind and of the legal age within the definition legal or with the consent of both surviving parents and is 16 may enter into and be bound by the obligation and duties of marriage."

Marriage therefore with this crude analysis above (which in no way is complete rather gives an outline of the concept to which I refer) is in the sole and complete custody of those entities which choose to enter into it. The sole obligations and duties of which those that are joined agree to between and amongst themselves.

arealplumber
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 10, September 2010, 9:54 pm

thank you
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 14, September 2010, 10:43 pm

In session 12 a discussion of “Same-sex marriage” – the focus was on the purpose defined most for procreation and sex. I have been married for 47 years and have 5 grandchildren. I can make a strong case that the procreate-sex viewpoint of marriage is very short-sighted. The long term caring and friendship is a very powerful benefit. (and yes there is still sex). I am sure that there are gay couples with this longevity and commitment – so they should be accorded the honor, the legal rights and civil affirmation but the name should be something besides marriage. The word marriage implies a spiritual commitment and religious benefit.

I am a Caucasian. If I wanted to be an American Indian, (I always wanted to be an Indian as a child) I could dress like an Indian that I would wish to emulate, study their culture, practice their religious ceremonies and live in their homes. I might marry an Indian, adopt Indian children, accept an Indian name and receive ceremonial honors. I could learn the tribe language, build a relationship with a clan, daily work with Indians and earn the respect of the Indians. The Tribe might include me and accept me. However, in spite of all of these things the Government would not recognize me as an Indian.

In the same way, I believe that gay partnerships should be allowed to be seamless in their social, moral, and civil recognition as a committed couple-Union. However much they want to be “married” they are not a marriage. They have every opportunity to be a mutually lifelong relationship between two consenting adults. So I would offer them the same and equal rights of marriage – including adoption, death benefits, health benefits, hospital decision rights, divorce rights, career rights and probably lots more that I haven’t thought of. But the scope of the word marriage is exclusive. Why make inclusive rather than create a new term describing the Gay relationship. Today any gay folks that I know talk about their “partners”. Maybe the term should be “Partner-Union”. Some states say that you are a legal union if you stay together for 7 or more years and live as husband and wife. That is called “Common-law Marriage”. If you wish to part ways, even though never formally married you must get a divorce. Maybe the new word for a Gay commitment should be Partner-law-Marriage.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 15, September 2010, 10:08 am

看来有不少人来看啊，keke
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 23, September 2010, 10:48 pm

As America always says democracy and peace,but what has you brought to the world:Before the war between America and Iraq, the Iraq was very rich,after the war of Iraq,the Iraq people all become very poor and there were many people died since the war began.So I am curious about it that if the democracy and peace is only to Americans?But not to the whole world?Could you tell me if it's true or not?If not,could you explain? Thanks a lot.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, October 2010, 10:15 pm

老外也喜歡大篇大篇的去討論啊~
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, October 2010, 9:33 pm

It’s very usful for me, I am only a senior high student,it helps me a lot ,I hope I can learn more,ofcourse,I hope I can go to a good Univorsity,at last,I want to say "Thank you !"
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 5, October 2010, 10:24 pm

@Thursday 23, September 2010, 10:48 pm

Maybe it is matter of scarcity. Real reason of Iraq war as we know is mixture of oil and religion, and between the people they might able to give it away. But between the country it is impossible.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 9, October 2010, 4:22 am

I really enjoy it. Professor, Thank you so much!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 16, October 2010, 12:53 am

Greetings from India,

It's been a pleasure watching this series. Thank you professor.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 16, October 2010, 4:04 am

good!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 16, October 2010, 2:38 pm

英语太差了，看不懂
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, October 2010, 1:32 am

for:
Harvard University’s Justice with Michael Sandel
Episode 12: Same Sex Marriage and the Good Life

Summary:
Divorce follows marriage almost as inexorably as death follows birth. The state’s interest in marriage is actually the bar’s interest in divorce. The state’s interest in marriage on the excuse of child welfare is inconsistent and hypocritical. The state’s interest in child custody at the time of divorce is actually the bar’s financial interest in child custody disputes. The state doesn’t show the same level of interest in the fitness of parents during the marriage, or for the children of single mothers. Because of disputes, parents spend money on lawyers and time in court that they could spend on and with children. Laws regarding child abuse and welfare deviate from very specific to very vague, depending on the place a child is in and the status of adults the child is with, though a child is a child is a child and all children have equal rights, including equal protection of law.

Discussion:
The dissolution of my second marriage was a terrible trial. I had to appear in court or meet with officials more than 70 times in 3 years to protect the interests of myself and my children in five different courts, although I’d committed no crime, except to marry the wrong man and give birth.

The father of my children filed for divorce after 15 years of marriage. I’d been a stay-at-home mom and home-schooling parent for 11 years when he initiated the divorce. My husband hadn’t paid me for my services to the children and him. I’d used my income and savings to buy the house in which my family lived. When divorce came, I had no money to pay lawyers to defend motherhood and me against my husband’s vicious and complex assault in the courts.

Therefore, I read law and wrote and filed my own pleadings. That was 20 years ago. I can rewrite and update the pleadings now with fewer words and less grief.

American law descends from British law. When the United States began its life as a democracy, Great Britain continued as a monarchy. The power of the British monarchy, like other monarchies, derives from the commingling of church and state. The entirety of a monarchical state exists in the person of its monarchs. Monarchs certify religious leaders and religious leaders certify monarchs in a closed circle of power. The Roman Catholic church provided the religious half of the closed circle of power for European countries for 1,000 years.

Marriage was a religious sacrament for Catholics. Kings and the states they stood for had no interest in it. When Henry VIII quit the Roman church and founded a new church, his Anglican church was more like than unlike the Roman church; and it retained control of marriage. British monarchs showed no interest in marriage, except their own affairs, for the next 100 years.

However, it is useful to position Henry’s great religious conversion on a timeline of Europe’s colonization of other continents. The timeline supports the suspicion that Henry divorced Rome for more reasons than his first failed marriage and his wish to produce male heirs to his throne.

When Columbus ‘discovered’ one of the Caribbean islands, he immediately claimed all the Americas for Spain (and reserved a big cut for the church). The Spanish monarch’s monopoly on the New World wouldn’t and didn’t feel fair to the monarchs of Christendom’s other nations. Portugal promptly sued Spain for divorce in the Vatican court. The dissolution was an excuse for the Pope to distribute marital property. He gave Brazil to Portugal. Spain got the remainder of the western hemisphere - from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle.

Think awhile on the Portugal v. Spain divorce decree, and you can see where the heretics were coming from.

When Henry VIII founded his own version of the Roman church, he relieved himself and his subjects of their prior obligation to honor the Pope’s decree regarding overseas dominion. British subjects were then free to colonize the Americas at will, and they followed through.

Colonization of North America, South America, Africa and Asia in the 1500s and 1600s made Europeans richer than they had been. A middle class developed where none had existed before.

Before colonial wealth, the state had no interest in marriage, because the divorce of poor people had no potential to make lawyers rich. After colonial wealth, the state developed an interest in marriage, because the divorce of middle class people was a gold mine for lawyers.

It was a simple matter for upper level British clergy to transfer their control of marriage to the British monarch and his state, since the three were as one, anyway. Parliament enacted marriage law that leant itself to long, complicated, painful and expensive divorces; and the deal was done.

For reasons the founding fathers of the United States and their successors can’t explain satisfactorily, the various states and territories of the new democratic nation adopted the Parliament’s marriage law as a starting point for domestic relations. They then invented new provisions that make divorce an even more heinous torture in the New World than the Old.

The problem for divorce lawyers in a democratic state is that the lucrative trade in sacraments that a church can make with a state, when they are joined, can’t be made when the bond between church and state has been cut.

A democratic state gets all its power from the people. The people can adhere to any religion they please, or no religion at all. Each religion has its own laws, sacraments and traditions of marriage. The state can’t adopt or confirm those of one, the other, or all religions. Nor can the state deny that marriage originated in religion and remains a sacrament for many of the people.

After the successful conclusion of the Revolution, at the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the state composed of former British colonies had to butt out of personal affairs. Also, Praise the Lord, the church couldn’t butt in on royal certification of any church or of any scheme to make divorce lawyers rich, because there are no royals on this side of the pond.

The state’s interest in marriage has always been the bar’s interest in divorce. Laws enacted by state legislators bear witness to the fact.

Before the colonies gave Europe a wealthy middle class, the Europeans were lords or vassals. The lords had landed wealth to pass to male heirs, and they married to get male heirs. They also married to get more wealth; and their marriages were financial affairs that resulted in written agreements between the in-laws, enforceable during the marriage and in the event of divorce or death.

Divorce – after clergy agreed to void the marriage sacrament - was always the mere reading of the marriage contract and following through on its provisions.

If men could get pregnant, the sacrament of marriage might not have been conceived. As it was, medieval monarchs, dukes, earls, barons, and gentry married to make heirs; and the custody of their children was predetermined. Rich fathers always got custody; and the topic never came up for their vassals. Poor husbands and wives were stuck with each other for life, because they couldn’t afford separate homes.

Divorce law in Illinois, as in other states, is consistent with its origin. It plays out like the train wreck it is. It’s the result of human error. Anglican bishops shouldn’t have traded divorce for whatever they got from the British state in exchange. Catholic cardinals shouldn’t have followed suit in the monarchies they retained.

Current domestic relations law (marriage and divorce) has to accomplish three things:

1. It has to accommodate the adherents of all the world’s religions plus atheists and agnostics. Therefore it says nothing.

2. It has to make business for divorce lawyers. Therefore it minimizes the prerequisites for marriage to the maturity of adolescence, the temporary absence of venereal disease, and a brief waiting period between the day the state issues a license and the day the nuptials are performed. The actual numbers vary from state-to-state, so that, if marriage is a fundamental right of the American people, it is, nonetheless, not an equal right that all people can enjoy uniformly in all the states.

3. It has to serve men of every class with an uncontrollable but short-term need to get laid without suffering consequences; and it also has to serve rich men who want heirs, as well as men with spiteful personality disorders coupled with moderate incomes who get off on stealing children from their mothers. Therefore, its provisions for child custody are so vague that interpretations of them are ad hoc and all over the map. Judges fly by the seats of their pants on this issue.

Judges are allowed to rule according to precedents, or common law. Thus, though women have been able to vote for approximately 85 years (four generations of experience with men, marriage and children), the courts generally determine the disposition of children and real estate as the lords wanted a thousands of years ago, for that is when the common law was established, when the law gave women the status of dairy cows and children the status of calves.

More than 85% of the American public gets married at least once. A high percentage of married people have children. The high level of indebtedness that Americans suffer for their homes means that few Americans own landed property and have substantial savings to fight over at divorce, leaving child custody as the only dispute to make money for lawyers.

Child custody was predetermined for rich fathers when they controlled law-making in the past. Common sense and biology dictate that child custody should be predetermined for mothers of every class now, because women are a majority of persons qualified to vote, actually produce the children in dispute, and are most qualified to evaluate the father’s relationship with and effect on the children day-to-day.

Illinois statutes for child welfare fall into several categories and several different courts enforce them.

The most specific of the laws describe in detail how teachers and staff members should instruct and can discipline children who live in the state’s residential facility for deaf and dumb. Enforcement of the law is a typical administrative inquiry into a teacher’s conduct.

All professional teachers would do well to follow the same conduct rules. It isn’t clear why a separate set of behavior standards exist for other adults who spend time with children.

Most professional teachers face an administrative procedure by school district officials if they maltreat children. School districts have a legal right to establish standards that deviate from standards that the Department of Children and Family Services applies when it investigates allegations.

Another set of laws criminalize the use of children to sell items and entertain crowds on streets, but not in legitimate theater and television commercials, nor the vending of Girl Scout cookies and PTA raffle tickets door-to-door. Adults who violate the laws are prosecuted in criminal court.

Juvenile court judges consider the fitness of unmarried mothers, and apply standards by which she is fit no matter what she does, short of terrible injuries to and attempts on the life of the child.

In domestic relations (divorce) court, the consideration of parental fitness is almost always the defamation of the mother’s character, under color of law, preparatory to the kidnapping of her children, by their father, under color of law.

The dissolution of marriage statute hits mothers without warning. The state can’t warn mothers about what they can and can’t do to their children, because the state itself doesn’t know until a father files for divorce and sues for custody.

From time to time the state licenses and pays women to teach, guide, entertain, feed, and police the children of other women, though the state’s domestic relations court has declared the women unfit to have custody of their own.

The state doesn’t list and publish its criteria for judging that certain acts are abusive or certain traits render a parent unfit. The state doesn’t publish and distribute its criteria to adolescents who’ve reached puberty, to young adults who might indulge in premarital sex, to people who apply for marriage licenses and can be presumed to make babies, to men and women who appear in the labor room of hospitals, or even to parents who enroll children in schools.

Domestic relations law for both marriage and divorce is too vague and unprincipled to enforce. It pretends to encourage good acts and deter abhorrent acts, but it can’t describe the acts and explicate them in guidebooks for the non-attorney public.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, October 2010, 10:28 am

Thank you.
תודה רבה.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, October 2010, 4:37 am

真的很不错，谢谢您！继续学习学习
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, October 2010, 4:51 am

Yeah!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, October 2010, 12:07 am

不错哦
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, October 2010, 11:07 am

here is my basic opinin that the moral that will lead the world better and better is good,otherwise,is bad and wrong.
if a choice can save more people(like 5 to 1),but it may lead to a violent and painful society,it's wrong.
by suyilong syl371559024@163.com
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 28, October 2010, 6:46 am

for the same thing some people think is right ,while other people think that is wong ,just as the moral,is just about different opinions
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 30, October 2010, 12:35 am

共同学习
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 30, October 2010, 2:00 am

中国人爱学习啊..
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 30, October 2010, 10:46 am

it is meaningless to debate this topic just as justice.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, November 2010, 7:34 am

很好嘛！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, November 2010, 10:28 pm

我靠，昨天说的共产党万岁被删了。
可能不能有政治言论！
这里也有河蟹
美国味道的河蟹
全世界的河蟹团结起来
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 4, November 2010, 12:43 am

中国人也要注意自己的素质啊
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, November 2010, 11:41 am

留个名，哈哈哈
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, November 2010, 12:54 pm

不登高山，不知天之高也；不临深溪，不知地之厚也，德操然后能定，能定然后能应。能定能应，夫是之谓成人
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Canadian pharmacy viagra
cialis online

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Readings

Discussion Guides