Originally posted by seer
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation
Collapse
X
-
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
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIf true that's actually kind of sad.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 PostMy position is that each of us determine what is moral based on what we value, including you.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 seer View PostYou know, I'm not sure that is exactly right. There were a number of moral positions in Scripture that I did not agree with - and would have it otherwise, even today. But I accept them because I believe they are God given and that He knows better than I.
My guess is that there is a mixture of valuing going on there. It may be that you value this god above all else, or it may be that you value the disposition of your "immortal soul" above all else, and are seeking to adopt moral positions you believe will most enhance/protect that. Only you know which it is, or if it's some combination.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 PostAll you are saying, Seer, is that you value your god above all else, so you subjugate your moralizing to your interpretation of what you think this god wants as documented in the Christian bible. If you did not value your god so much, then you wouldn't do that.
My guess is that there is a mixture of valuing going on there. It may be that you value this god above all else, or it may be that you value the disposition of your "immortal soul" above all else, and are seeking to adopt moral positions you believe will most enhance/protect that. Only you know which it is, or if it's some combination.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 PostMy position is that each of us determine what is moral based on what we value, including you. And we all tend to like it when the majority agrees with us, because it makes life that much easier. When they don't, then we are out of sync with the society and that is always challenging. Some Christians are experiencing this now as acceptance for the LGBTQ communiity becomes mainstream. I was experiencing it in 1978 when it wasn't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut that pretty much undermines your whole argument with Ox and everyone else in this thread, where you have been saying that us thinking homosexual behavior is immoral is actually bigotry because of genetics. That is just YOUR personal value judgement. That doesn't make it true, or a correct moral judgement on those who disagree with you. You are trying to pretend it is scientifically based when in fact it is nothing but your opinion and now you can't even appeal to the majority view. All you are arguing is your personal view and preferences.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 Sparko View PostBut that pretty much undermines your whole argument with Ox and everyone else in this thread, where you have been saying that us thinking homosexual behavior is immoral is actually bigotry because of genetics. That is just YOUR personal value judgement. That doesn't make it true, or a correct moral judgement on those who disagree with you. You are trying to pretend it is scientifically based when in fact it is nothing but your opinion and now you can't even appeal to the majority view. All you are arguing is your personal view and preferences.
I think it's quite Ok for carpe to do that. What I do think is wrong is for him (and other moral relativists) to borrow terms and language from objective morality to describe what are no more than his personal views.
When people read something like: "It is immoral and bigoted to deny this right to people who want it" the implication is that there is something objective grounding that claim. There isn't.
It's almost a kind of equivocation.
Ditto for all talk or implication of moral progress- doesn't exist under moral relativism. A change in moral views can't be any kind of objective improvement, but often the implication is given that it is.
Moral relativists should stop trying to borrow moral authority from moral objectivism....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
Moral relativists should stop trying to borrow moral authority from moral objectivism.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 oxmixmudd View PostIs the issue under discussion whether minority group X, is inferior due to alleged trait Y, and therefore should be denied human right Z?
The problem is that your generalization can apply to ANY moral assessment.
Is the issue under discussion whether minority group [people who genetically are predisposed to addition], is inferior due to alleged trait [illegal drug use] and there for should be denied human right [ freedom through incarceration]
The issue is even more difficult because ones (presumed) genetic disposition is tied to a particular historically moral action (same-sex acts).
When a lot of society is viewing membership of the minority group itself as immoral it's important to treat the topic really carefully, because history teaches us that we're on even more dangerous ground and in danger of committing serious atrocities, as compared to when the minority group is not viewed as itself inherently immoral but merely as having negative traits (e.g. Blacks).
In almost all cases we do not excuse immoral acts because a persons character or genetics predisposes them to commit the immoral act.
Our moral judgments of people are almost always predicated on the extent to which we think the person possessed true free will in the matter. If that free will is abridged in any way due to innate tendencies or temporary effects ("temporary insanity" was a historic legal defense for example), that is totally a mitigating factor.
1) The 3 major religions of the world define same-sex acts as immoral.
Christianity, today, is likewise split. With support for LGBT rights / morality varying by country and population.
So that has been the moral position of a very large part of the worlds population for a very, very long time.
1. The number of people living today exceeds the total number of people who've lived in the last several thousand years combined. If you're going by sheer numbers, historical peoples are largely irrelevant, and it's what people today think that matters. (One could also make an argument that it's probably better to pay attention to the opinions of the educated than it is to the ignorant, so you're probably better looking at what the OECD countries today think rather than say Chinese rice farmers or African desert tribesmen, and of course if you check today's OECD country's they're all but universally pro-LGBT)
2. Even within Christian Europe there were fluctuations in how LGBT issues were viewed over the last 1500 years. In plenty of periods the populace either didn't seem to know what the official teachings were on the issue or didn't care.
3. Anthropological surveys of different historical cultures and peoples reveal to us that indigenous peoples around the world were almost all okay to some extent or another with LGBT rights and issues. For example, across America, the common pre-colonial pattern among the native people groups was that any man was allowed opt out of the male gender and become 3rd gender, and a man could marry multiple women and also a 3rd gender person (and including a 3rd gender person among one's spouses was considered to bring luck). Overall, the majority of cultures in history have been fine with homosexuality.
2) The entire issue of whether this is a genetic trait or a genetic pre-disposition is unsettled. How is that different. As a genetic trait, the feelings of same-sex attraction would not be malleable. As a genetic pre-disposition, they wold arise more due to environmental influences than be a necessarily inherited trait that can't be changed or avoided. (I am aware that people that hail from your POV see this issue as more or less settled).
I know personally several people that have found that their same-sex attraction was more of an environmental consequence.
One of them left the gay lifestyle fairly early and has led a monogamous, hetero-sexual life ever since.
If you are saying that someone had a same sex relationship, and then had an opposite sex one, then I would note that is a common thing for bisexual people to do. If you are saying a guy went to a lot of gay bars and eventually married someone of the opposite sex, then again I would note that that is a common thing for bisexual people to do.
The other left the gay lifestyle after more that 20 years in it. The issues that trapped him in that lifestyle and that were countered by working though the events that put him into that lifestyle were quite real
I have no reason to doubt either of their stories about how same-sex attraction intersected with their lives.
Again though, there's nothing unusual about people who are bisexual getting married to someone of the opposite sex.
What you do with you simplification is dismiss a significant and very real component of this debate that makes this very different from the other issues you would try to equate it to.
Nothing you've said makes me think that equating it to other minority oppression in history isn't valid.
Those a-priori assumptions and the dismissive disposition that drives you make it nearly impossible for you to be able to hear the voices of those that hail from a different position on this than your own.
But that does not dismiss the fact that my religion very clearly defines the acts themselves as immoral.
I am not alone and one can't just dismiss the moral conscience of billions of people.
These issues of morality need to worked through within the various religious contexts. IF you think anything less is going to solve the problem, then you are demonstrating your own ignorance of conscience and the depth of impact religious teachings have on religious people.
...if there was anything approaching a compelling argument that my original question (Is the issue under discussion whether minority group X, is inferior due to alleged trait Y, and therefore should be denied human right Z?) is invalid / unreasonable in all of that, I guess I missed it. To me, that question still remains key."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIn either case the morals could not exactly be called mine, where in your case you would call them yours.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 PostBut that pretty much undermines your whole argument with Ox and everyone else in this thread, where you have been saying that us thinking homosexual behavior is immoral is actually bigotry because of genetics.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat is just YOUR personal value judgement.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat doesn't make it true, or a correct moral judgement on those who disagree with you.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou are trying to pretend it is scientifically based when in fact it is nothing but your opinion and now you can't even appeal to the majority view. All you are arguing is your personal view and preferences.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 PostAnd he holds to his opinions as strongly as any theist - even though he knows those opinions are ephemeral as smoke...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 MaxVel View PostI think it's quite Ok for carpe to do that. What I do think is wrong is for him (and other moral relativists) to borrow terms and language from objective morality to describe what are no more than his personal views.
When people read something like: "It is immoral and bigoted to deny this right to people who want it" the implication is that there is something objective grounding that claim. There isn't.
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostIt's almost a kind of equivocation.
Ditto for all talk or implication of moral progress- doesn't exist under moral relativism. A change in moral views can't be any kind of objective improvement, but often the implication is given that it is.
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostMoral relativists should stop trying to borrow moral authority from moral objectivism.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 Cow Poke, Today, 09:42 AM
|
4 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:26 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:04 AM
|
21 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:47 AM
|
17 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:38 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 10:22 PM
|
12 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:49 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:39 PM
|
13 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:27 AM
|
Comment