Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
No - it is pointing out the the entire position "same-sex marriage is immoral" and "same-sex intimacy is immoral" is not sustainable, because it is rooted in defining an act as immoral because of the genetic identity of the participants. Historically, such moral codes have been overturned, as they were when the morality of the act was based on race.
Oh for pity's sake, Sparko, stop whining. Anyone with a moral perspective is going to see someone who acts differently as moral or immoral. And everyone seeks to influence their society to act according to the norms they see as moral. You yourself want your moral norms to prevail, and want to see SCOTUS reverse the law on same sex marriage (you've said as much in other posts), thereby imposing your moral view on other people for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Now you object because I believe this man's moral position is immoral? You're not being consistent. If it's OK for you to point to same-sex couples and label them immoral, then there is no reason I should not be able to do exactly the same thing when I see something I believe is immoral.
You're right. It is immoral to me, and those who think like me. It is perfectly moral to you and those who think like you. So there is a conflict, which will either be resolved by discussion and reasoning, or (if that fails) it will be resolved by isolation/separation or conflict. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. In this case, that conflict is happening in the courts of law and has (so far) been moving in the direction of acceptance of same-sex couples. That may reverse for a while with the new composition of SCOTUS. However, the tide of public opinion has strongly turned, so if SCOTUS does act to deny those rights, we will probably see a responding shift to the left until nature of SCOTUS is changed. That is the pattern history shows us. Rights, in the U.S, tend to be extended - not contracted.
Oh for pity's sake, Sparko, stop whining. Anyone with a moral perspective is going to see someone who acts differently as moral or immoral. And everyone seeks to influence their society to act according to the norms they see as moral. You yourself want your moral norms to prevail, and want to see SCOTUS reverse the law on same sex marriage (you've said as much in other posts), thereby imposing your moral view on other people for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with you. Now you object because I believe this man's moral position is immoral? You're not being consistent. If it's OK for you to point to same-sex couples and label them immoral, then there is no reason I should not be able to do exactly the same thing when I see something I believe is immoral.
You're right. It is immoral to me, and those who think like me. It is perfectly moral to you and those who think like you. So there is a conflict, which will either be resolved by discussion and reasoning, or (if that fails) it will be resolved by isolation/separation or conflict. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. In this case, that conflict is happening in the courts of law and has (so far) been moving in the direction of acceptance of same-sex couples. That may reverse for a while with the new composition of SCOTUS. However, the tide of public opinion has strongly turned, so if SCOTUS does act to deny those rights, we will probably see a responding shift to the left until nature of SCOTUS is changed. That is the pattern history shows us. Rights, in the U.S, tend to be extended - not contracted.
Comment