Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Not quite right Carp, your argument again boils down to what "most people" think or believe.
    What most people think/believe is not my argument - it's an observation of the reality.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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 also not Technique #2 - It's technique #3 (which is a mixture of an argument from outrage and Technique #1)

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    Sure you can - and those who think like you will be doing it to. Those of us serious about a moral discussion know that humans do not moralize that way and move on (as I should have done long ago).

    You can also get into an extended discussion on the dangers to coastal cities because waves can theoretically be miles high...but we know waves don't get that high and the discussion is largely a waste of time. We can get into extended discussions on the need for insurance against meteor impact killing you as you walk to work...but we know of only one person in the history of humanity that has ever been killed that way, so it's largely a waste of time.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.
    Yes - we each value a wide variety of things, and consciously or unconsciously we rank them in importance.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    You think gays rights is of utmost importance, to another man the color of his new pickup is of more importance.
    And back to Technique #2... at least you're consistent...

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Moral or not these are value judgements. This is not a technique Carp, it is what naturally follows from your worldview.
    No - what naturally flows from my worldview is a fairly simple progression. If there WERE the odd duck who actually made the color of their pickup a prime value above their own life (absurd, but possible in a deranged individual), and there were no convincing them otherwise, then what would happen is the normal process of dealing with moral disconnects: isolate/separate, and/or contend. That person might well continue to claim they had a right to kill anyone that prevented them from getting a green pickup truck. Since the vast majority of the world does not moralize in that way, their view will be buried.

    That is what is happening today with gay rights. For years, the majority felt it was immoral and those of us who saw it otherwise were buried. Now, the arguments we have made have convinced many, and the tide has significantly turned. Some will have various reasons for clinging to their prejudicial beliefs. Over time, they will be increasingly isolated/separated, and the contention will happen in the courts of law.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      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.
      True! But there’s no evidence they do exist, quite the reverse. Social mores have changed enormously over the millennia...for the better overall...and Christianity has always adapted.

      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.
      And yet divorce and remarriage, which Jesus deemed adulterous, is now accepted in the highest quarters...a good example of our changing social mores in society at large.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        True! But there’s no evidence they do exist, quite the reverse. Social mores have changed enormously over the millennia...for the better overall...and Christianity has always adapted.
        And yet divorce and remarriage, which Jesus deemed adulterous, is now accepted in the highest quarters...a good example of our changing social mores in society at large.[/QUOTE]

        Again, I was making the point God's moral law or even moral realism would still exist even if we all got it wrong. Our subjective understanding or inconsistent practice would not change that.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

          No - what naturally flows from my worldview is a fairly simple progression. If there WERE the odd duck who actually made the color of their pickup a prime value above their own life (absurd, but possible in a deranged individual), and there were no convincing them otherwise, then what would happen is the normal process of dealing with moral disconnects: isolate/separate, and/or contend. That person might well continue to claim they had a right to kill anyone that prevented them from getting a green pickup truck. Since the vast majority of the world does not moralize in that way, their view will be buried.
          I did not say that he made the color of his truck of prime importance, only that he put much more importance on that, than on what you find important (gay rights). So in his hierarchy of values the color of his pick up is of much more importance than gay rights. And that is what naturally follows from your position, so when I compare your support for gay rights to a color preference that is a perfectly rational comparison given relativism and the context of individual preferences. Your hierarchy of values is no more true or right than his. And there you go appealing to the majority again!
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            And yet divorce and remarriage, which Jesus deemed adulterous, is now accepted in the highest quarters...a good example of our changing social mores in society at large.
            That simply isn't true. No Church I know of 'accepts' divorce as being 'ok'. In the RCC, divorce and remarriage is not by any means accepted, but there are certain circumstances where it can be allowed. Protestant churches are more tolerant. There is only one scriptural exception to Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage - adultery. Some will extend this to include abuse as a form of adultery.

            What you are confusing as 'acceptance' is the principle of Grace to those that remarry, understanding that people make mistakes (the mistake being related to the original marriage or marriages) . But that is a keyword here - mistake. The goal is still and has always been, one man, one woman for life. That is what marriage is supposed to be, that is what the church teaches marriage is. Sin and human weakness produces the circumstances that creates broken marriages, and society pays the cost of that over and over again in poverty and psychological scarring of the children and/or the abused partners. The Church extends grace to those that have suffered in that way, and guidance to help repair and mend the scars from it. This is a far better way than the 'red letter' days. But all of it is driven by the teaching of and respect for what Jesus said about it.

            IOW, the morality hasn't changed, only the Church's response to the immorality.


            Jim
            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              I have no clue how you get to this conclusion...



              Of course it is.



              It does not make it absolutely/objectively true. Each of us judges not only our own actions, but also the actions of those around us against our own moral framework. That's how morality works.



              Actually, my argument was about the inconsistency of seeing genetics as a poor basis for morality (mixed race couples) but then using it as a basis for morality with respect to sexual identity. In all honesty, your responses led me to believe you never actually understood that part of the argument.
              So back when I asked you WHY it was bigotry to discriminate based on sex in saying homosexual behavior is wrong, your answer should have been, "because that is my opinion" instead of trying to argue that it was somehow objectively wrong for us too.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                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.

                someone in this thread once said:

                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I do not think this can be approached as a numbers game. Morality is not determined by majority view. I think we need to look at the merits of the arguments to assess the morality of the actions.


                I eagerly await your equivocation.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I did not say that he made the color of his truck of prime importance, only that he put much more importance on that, than on what you find important (gay rights). So in his hierarchy of values the color of his pick up is of much more importance than gay rights. And that is what naturally follows from your position, so when I compare your support for gay rights to a color preference that is a perfectly rational comparison given relativism and the context of individual preferences. Your hierarchy of values is no more true or right than his. And there you go appealing to the majority again!
                  Technique #1

                  Since we are in a subjective world, no one's prioritization is objectively more true than anyone else's. But, of course, we know that, because we're in a (wait for it...) subjective worldview. No one has disagreed with this from the outset. Because...(wait for it)...subjective morality is not objective.

                  You're not saying anything, Seer, except repeating the definition of the terms...
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    So back when I asked you WHY it was bigotry to discriminate based on sex in saying homosexual behavior is wrong, your answer should have been, "because that is my opinion" instead of trying to argue that it was somehow objectively wrong for us too.
                    I said nothing about "objectively wrong" at any time. If you think so, please show me where that was said. If I ever said that, I would be wrong/inconsistent.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      someone in this thread once said:



                      I eagerly await your equivocation.
                      Why would I need to equivocate.

                      Do you see these two statements as in opposition to one another? If so, then you are apparently not interpreting them as they were intended. I see no opposition.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I said nothing about "objectively wrong" at any time. If you think so, please show me where that was said. If I ever said that, I would be wrong/inconsistent.
                        You were arguing with us that it was objective bigotry for us to say that homosexual behavior is wrong. You didn't use the world objective but you were arguing that everyone should consider it bigotry because it was based on genetics. You were trying to argue an objective reason for it being bigotry. When in fact, it is just a person opinion of yours.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Why would I need to equivocate.

                          Do you see these two statements as in opposition to one another? If so, then you are apparently not interpreting them as they were intended. I see no opposition.
                          That is equivocating right there!


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You were arguing with us that it was objective bigotry for us to say that homosexual behavior is wrong.
                            No - I never used or thought "objective" in any of my posts.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You didn't use the world objective but you were arguing that everyone should consider it bigotry because it was based on genetics.
                            I was arguing, and AM arguing, from my moral framework. I was also pointing out the logical inconsistency of rejecting as bigotry morality based on genetics when it is about race, but tolerating it when it is based on sex. Again...

                            Person with Gene X is acting immorally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene Y
                            Person with Gene X is acting morally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene X

                            If I tell you that Gene X is "black" and "Gene Y is "white" - you would look at me and say "why on earth does THAT impact morality? It's just genes! You're being a bigot.

                            Person with Gene X is acting morally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene Y
                            Person with Gene X is acting immorally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene X

                            If I tell you that Gene X is "male" and "Gene Y is "female" - you would look at me and say of COURSE that impacts morality.

                            But both positions are based on nothing more than the genetic code of the two people involved. My argument is about the inconsistency of your own position. The only response you can offer is "that's what the bible tells us." So, basically, your bible is telling you to be inconsistent, and you're OK with that because it's the "will of god."

                            See the problem...?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You were trying to argue an objective reason for it being bigotry. When in fact, it is just a person opinion of yours.
                            Actually - I am arguing that your own position is inconsistent. If the first is bigotry, so is the second. If the second is not bigotry, neither is the first.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              No - I never used or thought "objective" in any of my posts.



                              I was arguing, and AM arguing, from my moral framework. I was also pointing out the logical inconsistency of rejecting as bigotry morality based on genetics when it is about race, but tolerating it when it is based on sex. Again...

                              Person with Gene X is acting immorally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene Y
                              Person with Gene X is acting morally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene X

                              If I tell you that Gene X is "black" and "Gene Y is "white" - you would look at me and say "why on earth does THAT impact morality? It's just genes! You're being a bigot.

                              Person with Gene X is acting morally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene Y
                              Person with Gene X is acting immorally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene X

                              If I tell you that Gene X is "male" and "Gene Y is "female" - you would look at me and say of COURSE that impacts morality.

                              But both positions are based on nothing more than the genetic code of the two people involved. My argument is about the inconsistency of your own position. The only response you can offer is "that's what the bible tells us." So, basically, your bible is telling you to be inconsistent, and you're OK with that because it's the "will of god."

                              See the problem...?



                              Actually - I am arguing that your own position is inconsistent. If the first is bigotry, so is the second. If the second is not bigotry, neither is the first.
                              The problem is all that argumentation doesn't matter if morals are just relative opinions. There is nothing actually wrong with discriminating against some behavior because of genetics or race or anything else. If there were, then you would be admitting that there are objective morals. Rights and wrongs for everyone. But you don't believe that, so all of your argumentation is just a smoke screen. There is no such thing as "bigotry" because it is simply a personal opinion that someone like you holds for whatever reason you want to. You think it is bigotry because of "genetics." Someone else might think it is bigotry because of some other reason. Neither of you would be right or wrong about it. It is just a personal value you hold and the reason is just a rationalization.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                The problem is all that argumentation doesn't matter if morals are just relative opinions. There is nothing actually wrong with discriminating against some behavior because of genetics or race or anything else. If there were, then you would be admitting that there are objective morals. Rights and wrongs for everyone. But you don't believe that, so all of your argumentation is just a smoke screen. There is no such thing as "bigotry" because it is simply a personal opinion that someone like you holds for whatever reason you want to. You think it is bigotry because of "genetics." Someone else might think it is bigotry because of some other reason. Neither of you would be right or wrong about it. It is just a personal value you hold and the reason is just a rationalization.
                                And you completely ignored the part where your own moral position is logically inconsistent.

                                I rest my case...
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                142 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                387 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X