Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you can not make a logical (deductive) argument for why a man who puts more importance on something trivial rather than gay rights for instance is wrong. You accuse me of using these techniques (trying to minimize my points) yet you can not assail the logic.

Seer...I cannot make a logical deductive argument to arrive at an objective assessment from the context of a subjective worldview. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. And you are right - I cannot assail the logic. Because there isn't any to assail. This "argument" simply says, "subjective frameworks are not objective frameworks." It doesn't actually say anything except repeat the definition of the terms "subjective" and "objective." It's not an argument...it's a repetition of a definition.

I understand you don't get that. I have no idea how to help you get it. Subjective frameworks cannot make absolute/objective claims. We all know this. You are just repeating it over, and over, and over, again. I acknowledged the point dozens of pages ago, and many times since then. What you haven't done, is make any case for why that is a bad thing. You just keep repeating it, over, and over, and over again.

So here's your challenge: make the case for why a subjective framework is not as good as an objective framework, without simply repeating the definitions of the terms.

[seer]

Seer...I cannot make a logical deductive argument to arrive at an objective assessment from the context of a subjective worldview. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. And you are right - I cannot assail the logic. Because there isn't any to assail. This "argument" simply says, "subjective frameworks are not objective frameworks." It doesn't actually say anything except repeat the definition of the terms "subjective" and "objective." It's not an argument...it's a repetition of a definition.

I understand you don't get that. I have no idea how to help you get it. Subjective frameworks cannot make absolute/objective claims. We all know this. You are just repeating it over, and over, and over, again. I acknowledged the point dozens of pages ago, and many times since then. What you haven't done, is make any case for why that is a bad thing. You just keep repeating it, over, and over, and over again.

So here's your challenge: make the case for why a subjective framework is not as good as an objective framework, without simply repeating the definitions of the terms.

Then just admit that my techniques are perfectly rational, and naturally follow from your worldview.

[carpedm9587]

Then just admit that my techniques are perfectly rational, and naturally follow from your worldview.

Seer...your techniques are not rational or arguments in any sense of the term. Technique 1 is repeating the definition of two English words ad infinitum. It's like listening to someone who wants to say "green is better than blue" actually say, "green is not blue" over and over again, thinking they are actually making a rational argument. You want to say (I presume) that "objective is better than subjective," but all you keep actually doing is saying "objective is not subjective," over and over and over again.

Your other two techniques are not even arguments. They're crowd-pleasing debate tactics.

So far, I have not seen you put forward one rational argument for "objective" or "absolute" morality. When we started, months ago, someone said something to the effect of "I like to watch Seer take atheists apart." I thought, "finally, someone who can put forward an actual argument for objective morality." It has never happened.

In your defense, you are not the only one using Techniques 1, 2 and 3. They are basically all I have seen. It's as if someone out there held a conference and taught all Christians, "this is how you answer those relativists." Your responses have been spot-on, and you have learned the lessons well. Unfortunately, they got it wrong.

Someday, maybe, someone will actually put forward an argument with substance to it that we can examine and peel apart. I'm getting to the point where I am pretty sure you are not that person.

[seer]

Seer...your techniques are not rational or arguments in any sense of the term. Technique 1 is repeating the definition of two English words ad infinitum. It's like listening to someone who wants to say "green is better than blue" actually say, "green is not blue" over and over again, thinking they are actually making a rational argument. You want to say (I presume) that "objective is better than subjective," but all you keep actually doing is saying "objective is not subjective," over and over and over again.

Your other two techniques are not even arguments. They're crowd-pleasing debate tactics.

So far, I have not seen you put forward one rational argument for "objective" or "absolute" morality. When we started, months ago, someone said something to the effect of "I like to watch Seer take atheists apart." I thought, "finally, someone who can put forward an actual argument for objective morality." It has never happened.

In your defense, you are not the only one using Techniques 1, 2 and 3. They are basically all I have seen. It's as if someone out there held a conference and taught all Christians, "this is how you answer those relativists." Your responses have been spot-on, and you have learned the lessons well. Unfortunately, they got it wrong.

Someday, maybe, someone will actually put forward an argument with substance to it that we can examine and peel apart. I'm getting to the point where I am pretty sure you are not that person.

See, you are equivocating again. One of your complaints was that I would attempt to minimize your moral opinion by comparing it to a trivial preference. But logically I am perfectly correct, you know that you can not make a deductive argument supporting your position. If your worldview is correct then the importance you put on gays rights is no more true or rational than the man who puts importance on something you find trivial while dismissing gay rights as a serious moral consideration. So your technique of challenging this fact is without foundation. Why not just admit that I am correct and move on?

[carpedm9587]

See, you are equivocating again.

No

One of your complaints was that I would attempt to minimize your moral opinion by comparing it to a trivial preference.

Actually, I try not to "complain." Complaining is something a wife does when toilet seat keeps getting left up. It's what a man does when the beer is left out to warm. Or what a child does when he or she doesn't get the candy they were hoping for. This is one of your debate tactics. Rational argumentation becomes "complaining." Moral positions become "ephemeral." You know what the words mean, and what image they portray, and I suspect you use them for that effect. You never compare morality to other transient things, like the sun, or the decay of a uranium 256 isotope. These things are transient, but extremely long lasting with lingering effects. That would not do. You need to use terms that imply "tiny," "useless," "short," "trivial," so you can make an emotional case for your position. This is why I identify your approach as "debate tactics" and not logical argumentation.

But logically I am perfectly correct, you know that you can not make a deductive argument supporting your position.

Actually, I have put forward many such arguments. You just ignore them and keep coming back to your three techniques. I have even shown you how your own moral position is relative...and you ignore it and keep coming back to the three techniques.

If your worldview is correct then the importance you put on gays rights is no more true or rational than the man who puts importance on something you find trivial while dismissing gay rights as a serious moral consideration.

So - Technique #1 again. If my worldview is correct, the importance I put on gay rights is no more absolutely/objectively true...so you're back to Technique #1. In fact, I can draw a rational line directly from the moral position I hold to the things I value. You can do so as well. You just don't acknowledge that you are yourself engaging in a relative/subjective moral exercise. We differ in what we value, so we differ in our moral conclusions. When that happens, as I have said countless times, "persuade" becomes less likely, and the next steps are isolate/separate and/or contend.

So your technique of challenging this fact is without foundation. Why not just admit that I am correct and move on?

Because you aren't?

[seer]

So - Technique #1 again. If my worldview is correct, the importance I put on gay rights is no more absolutely/objectively true...so you're back to Technique #1. In fact, I can draw a rational line directly from the moral position I hold to the things I value. You can do so as well. You just don't acknowledge that you are yourself engaging in a relative/subjective moral exercise. We differ in what we value, so we differ in our moral conclusions. When that happens, as I have said countless times, "persuade" becomes less likely, and the next steps are isolate/separate and/or contend.

That is not the point Carp. How is it wrong or incorrect to compare your moral opinion to a trivial preference (one that you find trivial) when you agree that what we find important or not is subjective, depending on the individual's point if view. How is that merely a technique if it is true?

[Starlight]

It's like listening to someone who wants to say "green is better than blue" actually say, "green is not blue" over and over again, thinking they are actually making a rational argument. You want to say (I presume) that "objective is better than subjective," but all you keep actually doing is saying "objective is not subjective," over and over and over again.

Yeah, it's like a stuck record. Trouble is, as you point out, it's the wrong record.

So far, I have not seen you put forward one rational argument for "objective" or "absolute" morality. When we started, months ago, someone said something to the effect of "I like to watch Seer take atheists apart." I thought, "finally, someone who can put forward an actual argument for objective morality." It has never happened.

Seer taking atheists apart with his arguments...

I'm getting to the point where I am pretty sure you are not that person.

I'm shocked.

[seer]

Seer taking atheists apart with his arguments...

Well I don't know about all atheists but I never had a problem taking your nonsensical moral views apart. Of course that was low hanging fruit, after all your ethical system justifies infanticide...

[Tassman]

Well I don't know about all atheists but I never had a problem taking your nonsensical moral views apart. Of course that was low hanging fruit, after all your ethical system justifies infanticide...

The problem with your 'god did it' moral arguments is that you pretend that they are fixed and immutable. You ignore the demonstrable fact that moral values have changed over the millennia in accordance with changing social mores. LGBT rights are an example of this.

[Pluto]

Nothing needs to change, AFAICT.



So you think Christians will only be able to get services from those who disagree with them? And that matters because...



I'm losing you...



So you believe that I am going to be dismayed because those who discriminate against homosexuals are going to suffer a diminishment in service? Pluto, do you think that I would be dismayed to find that those who discriminated against black people might suffer some diminishment in service if businesses were required to serve all races equally?



So, if I understand your argument, there is a risk that religions might be discriminated against if people who reject discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation stand their ground? Are you seriously suggesting that we should tolerate discrimination against people on the basis of sexual or sexual-orientation grounds because otherwise the people who discriminate against them might be discriminated against?

I am floored by even the suggestion of such an argument. You might as well suggest that we should tolerate racial discrimination because otherwise the KKK or the Neo-Nazi movement might be discriminated against.



I have to admit I never even considered it. For a long time now, the far right has hung out the banner of "if you do not accept our discrimination, then you are discriminating against us." To this I have to say, "horse ....."

I do not care WHAT the justification for discrimination might be. Religion is not an excuse - and it is not a free pass. No one can hide behind the banner of "religion" and claim the right to persecute those they find offensive. And the Christian right can say "we love homosexuals - we just don't love homosexual acts" all they want, the rest of us hear, "we love black people - we just don't love what black people do." There is NO moral framework that is justifiably based on the genetics of the people involved. That is what anti-homosexuality is all about. Action A is moral if it is done by XX and XY, but it becomes immoral when it is done by XX and XX or XY and XY.

Morality is NOT based on genetics. It never has been. It never should be. Any attempt to make it so is unethically discriminatory, and no religion can justify it.

You have been civil throughout this discussion, Pluto, and for that I am grateful. Many others have not been able to maintain your level of civility. However, I utterly and unequivocally reject your argument. I do not reject YOU, however. I am impressed by your willingness to engage in the discussion and keep it about the subject at hand. I simply cannot even begin to accept the argument as you have presented it.

Thank you for your kind words, and willingness to wait through both my slow posting and my step-by-step thoughts. Your willingness and civility does you credit, and that likely improved the clarity of my argument. I’ve never been particularly good at putting my thoughts in order, and so the frequent delays helped me not go on tangents or say things I had not thought through. This has been an enjoyable, though exhausting, experience. (not due to you mind, I’m just not practiced at it.)

Given the vehemence of your response(and the nature of the argument), I find it unlikely that further discussion is liable to be fruitful. (And I just need a break… ) Especially since you have pretty much correctly identified my argument. So I leave this as my final comment on that topic. To be more specific, yes, I hold that specific forms of discrimination are forbidden even against those who hold heinous morals such as the KKK. As a stronger example, if I make a contract with a KKK member for something unrelated to his immorality, I cannot renege on that contract just because he is evil. Neither can I rob him, nor do various other things if he is not substantially harming the community. Intentionally sub-par service is a weaker variant of ‘theft’ and ‘contract breaking’ in my book. Refusing service is a permitted, and recommended, option if someone is cannot expect to provide reasonable service to someone(or if someone has a moral objection to the service being requested). And immoral actions toward those who do immoral deeds(or hold immoral positions) is something that has to be weighed when determining a course of action, though it may not change the course in the end.

I did find it rather amusing that soon after you condemn the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” type position, you act in its spirit. (If this isn’t clear, the ‘sin’ in this case is my holding homosexual acts to be immoral(which is immoral, in your book), and I would be the sinner. The ‘I reject your argument[and implicitly, my morality], but do not reject you’, as well as the rest of your post, is exactly the correct way to apply it, both in spirit and in deed.) Just… be careful would you? There is a reason Christians are called to love our enemies.(Matthew 5:43-48) Not caring about what happens to those you despise is a little like playing with fire. Give it too much free reign, and it will destroy all you seek to build. If you go too far in this, then in practical terms, the second option (bake no wedding cakes) we’ve been discussing won’t exist. All that would be left is ‘Abandon your religion, or else’.

May you be blessed and have a nice day(well, night, given the time of this posting... ),
Pluto

[seer]

The problem with your 'god did it' moral arguments is that you pretend that they are fixed and immutable. You ignore the demonstrable fact that moral values have changed over the millennia in accordance with changing social mores. LGBT rights are an example of this.

And you never understood that if the law of God exists, or even if moral realism is true, they would not depend on our subjective understanding or practice. If for instance the law of God deemed adultery immoral, it would remain immoral even if every Christian on earth decided it wasn't. You are again confusing ontology with epistemology.

[Cow Poke]

And you never understood that if the law of God exists, or even if moral realism is true, they would not depend on our subjective understanding or practice.

This is also true of the laws of physics.

[carpedm9587]

That is not the point Carp. How is it wrong or incorrect to compare your moral opinion to a trivial preference (one that you find trivial) when you agree that what we find important or not is subjective, depending on the individual's point if view. How is that merely a technique if it is true?

It is a technique because a) it uses language to trivialize a position without actually addressing the position, while it b) simultaneously ignores reality.

You know, as do I, that what humans value lies on a continuum. Life is one thing most people value most, for obvious reasons. It is why acts related to life have strong moral attachments. From this "most valued" end of the spectrum we can travel all the way to incidental preferences, like the flavor of the toothpaste I buy. None of us use "moral" language to reflect toothpaste purchases. It simply is too far down on the "value" spectrum to have that much import to us.

Somewhere along that spectrum, actions relating to what we value cease to be moral issues and become "mere preferences." If the top end of the line is "most valued" and the bottom is "least valued," you regularly and consistently take things from the bottom of the line and compare them to things from the top, knowing full well that this arrangement is not one you have ever seen happen in any human being, and is unlikely ever to. No one is actually going to make moral statements about toothpaste flavor, or hold it to a higher value than life.

Instead of an honest discussion about someone who might value liberty over life instead of life over liberty, so end up with a different moral code, you pick out the most trivial of human valuing in instance after instance. That is the "technique." It's not about the actual way morality works in the human person; it's about using a debate tactic.

So...yes...

...a person could value toothpaste above life...and develop a moral code accordingly.
...a horse with enough flatulence could theoretically achieve mach speed
...a tree could theoretically grow to be taller than Mount Everest
...a human could theoretically get strong enough to lift a building

None of these things are "impossible" or defy any laws of logic, reason, or even physics. We just both know that they won't happen. They are improbable to the point of being practically impossible.

[seer]

It is a technique because a) it uses language to trivialize a position without actually addressing the position, while it b) simultaneously ignores reality.

You know, as do I, that what humans value lies on a continuum. Life is one thing most people value most, for obvious reasons. It is why acts related to life have strong moral attachments. From this "most valued" end of the spectrum we can travel all the way to incidental preferences, like the flavor of the toothpaste I buy. None of us use "moral" language to reflect toothpaste purchases. It simply is too far down on the "value" spectrum to have that much import to us.

Somewhere along that spectrum, actions relating to what we value cease to be moral issues and become "mere preferences." If the top end of the line is "most valued" and the bottom is "least valued," you regularly and consistently take things from the bottom of the line and compare them to things from the top, knowing full well that this arrangement is not one you have ever seen happen in any human being, and is unlikely ever to. No one is actually going to make moral statements about toothpaste flavor, or hold it to a higher value than life.

Instead of an honest discussion about someone who might value liberty over life instead of life over liberty, so end up with a different moral code, you pick out the most trivial of human valuing in instance after instance. That is the "technique." It's not about the actual way morality works in the human person; it's about using a debate tactic.

So...yes...

...a person could value toothpaste above life...and develop a moral code accordingly.
...a horse with enough flatulence could theoretically achieve mach speed
...a tree could theoretically grow to be taller than Mount Everest
...a human could theoretically get strong enough to lift a building

None of these things are "impossible" or defy any laws of logic, reason, or even physics. We just both know that they won't happen. They are improbable to the point of being practically impossible.

Not quite right Carp, your argument again boils down to what "most people" think or believe. And that is not an argument. And I did give very concrete examples, like the Nazi who put more value on his dinner than the life of Jewish child that he exterminated that morning. That is not ignoring reality. Now we both would put much more value on the life of a child over something as trivial as what we are going to have for dinner. But if moral relativism is true I am well within my rational rights to compare the two. And it really doesn't matter if these considerations are moral or not, it is what we value or not, and the importance we ascribe. You think gays rights is of utmost importance, to another man the color of his new pickup is of more importance. Moral or not these are value judgements. This is not a technique Carp, it is what naturally follows from your worldview.

[carpedm9587]

Thank you for your kind words, and willingness to wait through both my slow posting and my step-by-step thoughts. Your willingness and civility does you credit, and that likely improved the clarity of my argument. I’ve never been particularly good at putting my thoughts in order, and so the frequent delays helped me not go on tangents or say things I had not thought through. This has been an enjoyable, though exhausting, experience. (not due to you mind, I’m just not practiced at it.)

Takes a while to get used to...

Given the vehemence of your response(and the nature of the argument), I find it unlikely that further discussion is liable to be fruitful. (And I just need a break… ) Especially since you have pretty much correctly identified my argument. So I leave this as my final comment on that topic. To be more specific, yes, I hold that specific forms of discrimination are forbidden even against those who hold heinous morals such as the KKK.

As would I.

As a stronger example, if I make a contract with a KKK member for something unrelated to his immorality, I cannot renege on that contract just because he is evil. Neither can I rob him, nor do various other things if he is not substantially harming the community. Intentionally sub-par service is a weaker variant of ‘theft’ and ‘contract breaking’ in my book. Refusing service is a permitted, and recommended, option if someone is cannot expect to provide reasonable service to someone(or if someone has a moral objection to the service being requested). And immoral actions toward those who do immoral deeds(or hold immoral positions) is something that has to be weighed when determining a course of action, though it may not change the course in the end.

I actually agree with pretty much all of your points here, which is, ironically, why I believe to discriminate against someone who is looking for a service for a same-sex wedding should not be discriminated against because of the matched gender of the two people involved.

I did find it rather amusing that soon after you condemn the “Love the sinner, hate the sin” type position, you act in its spirit. (If this isn’t clear, the ‘sin’ in this case is my holding homosexual acts to be immoral(which is immoral, in your book), and I would be the sinner. The ‘I reject your argument[and implicitly, my morality], but do not reject you’, as well as the rest of your post, is exactly the correct way to apply it, both in spirit and in deed.)

I actually have no problem with "love the sinner, hate the sin." My only objection is when it becomes a pretext behind which to hide prejudice and bigotry. If someone were to say, "I love black people, I just believe black people marrying white people is immoral," I would raise an eyebrow. I raise the same eyebrow when someone says "I love gay people, I just believe two men or two women marrying each other is immoral."

Just… be careful would you? There is a reason Christians are called to love our enemies.(Matthew 5:43-48) Not caring about what happens to those you despise is a little like playing with fire. Give it too much free reign, and it will destroy all you seek to build. If you go too far in this, then in practical terms, the second option (bake no wedding cakes) we’ve been discussing won’t exist. All that would be left is ‘Abandon your religion, or else’.

May you be blessed and have a nice day(well, night, given the time of this posting... ),
Pluto

Hopefully I have assuaged your concern on that front. I see a great deal of good done by Christians and Christian communities. This is an area where they do harm. I can "love the sinner and hate the sin," but that doesn't give the sinner a free pass to keep doing harmful things.