Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[seer]

God's law is grounded in His nature, it is subjective to Him. He is the subject. You could say that His law is objective to humankind in that it exists independently of us and our personal moral opinions do not effect it or change it.



Monkeys DON'T have rules - by definition. Rules are conceptual. They have instinct. So animals can live and thrive just fine without rules. So yes, there is a clear leap.

[shunyadragon]

Monkeys DON'T have rules - by definition. Rules are conceptual. They have instinct. So animals can live and thrive just fine without rules. So yes, there is a clear leap.

Research on tribes of monkeys have demonstrated that chimpanzees definitely have rules and exhibit many human social characteristics including territorial combat and killing chimpanzees of other tribes. Rules also have been shown to evolve from instinctual needs for survival of species, particularly primates



They have also been shown to mourn the death of members of their communities.

More to follow.

[shunyadragon]

More on primates:

[Tassman]

God's law is grounded in His nature, it is subjective to Him. He is the subject. You could say that His law is objective to humankind in that it exists independently of us and our personal moral opinions do not effect it or change it.

Monkeys DON'T have rules - by definition. Rules are conceptual. They have instinct. So animals can live and thrive just fine without rules. So yes, there is a clear leap.

Of course they do. Research indicates that primates exhibit many human social characteristics and enforce rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour within the group just as early man would have done. This behaviour is a form of primitive morality and the precursor of morality as we know it today

[seer]

Which part don't you believe? That all moral ideas are subjective? That God and His law exist?

Of course they do. Research indicates that primates exhibit many human social characteristics and enforce rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour within the group just as early man would have done. This behaviour is a form of primitive morality and the precursor of morality as we know it today

Everything you mentioned is merely the result of instinct, again rules are conceptual. You are leaping from instinct to conceptual, propositional rule making. Which takes sophisticated language, understanding of long term consequences, conscious application, shared abstract understanding and acceptance. Monkey one does not tell Monkey two if you don't kill me and take my food, I won't kill you and take your food.

[Tassman]

Which part don't you believe? That all moral ideas are subjective? That God and His law exist?

The whole argument is based on a bald assertion, an assumption on your part. There's no reason for me to believe you.

Everything you mentioned is merely the result of instinct, again rules are conceptual. You are leaping from instinct to conceptual, propositional rule making. Which takes sophisticated language, understanding of long term consequences, conscious application, shared abstract understanding and acceptance. Monkey one does not tell Monkey two if you don't kill me and take my food, I won't kill you and take your food.

The instinctive nature of a moral code does not make it less real. A mother instinctively nurtures her child whether or not the nurturing instinct has been conceptualised. Primitive social instincts are demonstrably the precursors of morality as we know it today.

[seer]

The whole argument is based on a bald assertion, an assumption on your part. There's no reason for me to believe you.

Again, believe what? That all moral ideas are subjective? That God and His law exist?

The instinctive nature of a moral code does not make it less real. A mother instinctively nurtures her child whether or not the nurturing instinct has been conceptualised. Primitive social instincts are demonstrably the precursors of morality as we know it today.

Are you dense, they are not "moral codes" until they are conceptualized. Instinct does not necessarily lead to the conceptualization of moral codes or laws. And those moral codes or laws only go back thousands of years, not millions. Period.

[shunyadragon]

Are you dense, they are not "moral codes" until they are conceptualized. Instinct does not necessarily lead to the conceptualization of moral codes or laws. And those moral codes or laws only go back thousands of years, not millions. Period.

As cited as scientific evidence and research over many years primates have moral codes and social structure.

[Tassman]

Again, believe what? That all moral ideas are subjective? That God and His law exist?

What I'm objecting to is your logically fallacious bald assertion that God's law is grounded in his nature and subjective to him etc. There are no substantive grounds for this belief or indeed that gods even exist.

Are you dense, they are not "moral codes" until they are conceptualized. Instinct does not necessarily lead to the conceptualization of moral codes or laws. And those moral codes or laws only go back thousands of years, not millions. Period.

They are moral codes in practice whether conceptualised and formally codified or not. And they date back millions of years for as long as man and his primate cousins lived in social groups.