Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Tassman]

And human beings are inherently entitled to force other human beings to do work for them, and to exchange goods with them.
Oh, wait, no that's called slavery and theft.

all

But surely human beings are inherently entitled to have a government issue them a certificate, associated with various arbitrary legal privileges? Oops, nope, government licensure and arbitrary legal privileges are not inherent to human beings either.

Stop whining. See above.

And, like I said, a reasonable expectation entering a deli is that you can purchase ham. But then you discovered you entered a kosher deli. So what?

A kosher Deli stocks kosher products and by law cannot discriminate against who he sells his product to, just as a cake shop owner cannot discriminate against who he provides his services to.

And when can single people get the same legal privileges as married people?!

When they get married, obviously.

[Tassman]

Right, so what is your point? The federal government did not institute a state religion. But may states did institute state churches. Including John Adam's own state of Massachusetts.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America and overrides all other laws.

But homosexuals always had the exactly same right as me - to marry someone of the opposite sex.

You had the right to marry someone you loved and were sexually attracted to, a right denied to homosexuals in the USA until last week.

There are no inalienable rights in your godless universe Tass, nor rationally can there be. The fact that we are social being does not tell us that we have inalienable rights - I mean do monkeys who are social beings have inalienable rights? Your argument is just silly.

then inalienable, fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled and which we all accept as inviolable, can only have arisen naturally. Humans have evolved as altruistic social beings imbued with the innate instincts of group awareness, response to the social rules and needs of the group. These characteristics are sufficient to explain the inherent entitlements of all people.

[seer]

We all know what marriage is Seer, if you've got a point, make it. Saying "then why can't I do X" is, again, a slippery slope and you'll need to actually do more legwork if you expect a response.

Well no, obviously we don't all know what marriage is. It used to be a union between a man and a woman. And I'm asking since the Supreme court ruling what legal reasoning will prevent polygamy. Why can't you marry your sister - not for sexual relationships but for legal benefits.

[JimL]

Well no, obviously we don't all know what marriage is. It used to be a union between a man and a woman. And I'm asking since the Supreme court ruling what legal reasoning will prevent polygamy

That was before homosexuals were treated with the same dignity and respect as heterosexuals. The church of course believes homosexuality to be an abomination, ergo homosexual marriage would have also to be a sin, but we don't live in a theocracy, so it isn't what the church believes that matters. Govenment sactioned marriage is what the government defines it to be. The government doesn't need the churches permission to re-define marriage.

Why can't you marry your sister - not for sexual relationships but for legal rights.

Because it is illegal.

[Starlight]

It used to be a union between a man and a woman. ... Why can't you marry your sister

Good point seer, the old 'definition' of marriage didn't prevent incest. Good thing we changed it I guess.

[seer]

Good point seer, the old 'definition' of marriage didn't prevent incest. Good thing we changed it I guess.

Actually it did in the US. No legal reason it should any more.

[Starlight]

Actually it did in the US.

OK... feel free to explain how the old definition of marriage (as being between a man and a woman) prevented incest.

You can't, of course. This is just the latest in your long line of arguments that attempt to hold liberal/progressive views to a standard that your own conservative Christian views clearly fail. It makes me laugh every time, but you just never seem to spot that your own arguments work better against your own views than they do against the views you're trying to attack with them.

[seer]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America and overrides all other laws.

Right, but it was not unconstitutional for states to have tax payer supported churches. It was only the federal government that could not institute a national church, like the Church of England.

You had the right to marry someone you loved and were sexually attracted to, a right denied to homosexuals in the USA until last week.

No, that is false. What if I loved my sister? And why does sexual attraction have to enter in?

then inalienable, fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled and which we all accept as inviolable, can only have arisen naturally. Humans have evolved as altruistic social beings imbued with the innate instincts of group awareness, response to the social rules and needs of the group. These characteristics are sufficient to explain the inherent entitlements of all people.

Again, that is a leap of logic. Actually just silly. Honey bees and monkeys are social beings does it follow that they then somehow have inherent rights? And no, such inviolable rights could not have risen naturally. Nothing is morally inviolable in a godless universe or in evolutionary theory. Where were the inviolable rights of the millions of dissidents that the Maoists killed?

[Adrift]

OK... feel free to explain how the old definition of marriage (as being between a man and a woman) prevented incest.

You can't, of course. This is just the latest in your long line of arguments that attempt to hold liberal/progressive views to a standard that your own conservative Christian views clearly fail. It makes me laugh every time, but you just never seem to spot that your own arguments work better against your own views than they do against the views you're trying to attack with them.

You honestly believe that the illegality of incest hasn't stopped many people from committing it? It seems pretty common sense to me that it has. If society puts a taboo on something, then that would seem to curb behavior. Maybe not eliminate it completely, but certainly stifle it to a large degree. There's quite a bit of shame involved in someone being caught in a torrid romance with their cousin or sibling today. Assuming that taboo is lifted, we may or may not see greater incentive for people to commit incest, but there may be less shame associated with it, and those who wouldn't even think about it at one point in history might consider it at another.

[seer]

OK... feel free to explain how the old definition of marriage (as being between a man and a woman) prevented incest.

I did not feel the need to explain every restriction the West put on marriage over a Millennium. It is assumed that you would have understood that.

You can't, of course. This is just the latest in your long line of arguments that attempt to hold liberal/progressive views to a standard that your own conservative Christian views clearly fail. It makes me laugh every time, but you just never seem to spot that your own arguments work better against your own views than they do against the views you're trying to attack with them.

Nonsense, so you can't answer the question - why shouldn't I have the right to marry my sister? Or three women?

[The Thinker]

Do you even know what a 'fundy Christian' is?

People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions."

[The Thinker]

Fundies ignore context. We look at the context and use actual scholars to support our views based on historical evidence.

Historical evidence? What historical evidence?

And some scholars are fundies, so merely saying that you use actual scholars to support your views says nothing.

[The Thinker]

They are objective to humankind. They do not rely on the the whims of men for their existence. And they have authority because God is able to punish and reward on a universal scale. Unlike your view of objective morality which has no authority, and can be ignored without any consequences.

No, they are subjective to human kind. They don't apply to animals, they don't apply to aliens if they exist, they only apply to human beings, under your view. They rely on your opinion for their existence and there is no objective evidence that your moral views exist independently of your opinion. Punishing and rewarding doesn't make things objectively good or bad, might doesn't make right. And your moral views can be ignored without any consequence (1) because your god doesn't exist, and (2) if he did we are saved by faith, and so I can spend 50 years torturing and eating children for fun and as long as I die a Christian I go to heaven.

Tell me why slavery is objectively morally wrong. Tell me why torturing and eating children for fun is objectively morally wrong.

[The Thinker]

Kindergarten theology called, they want their argument back. Considering that Christian views is that many things, flow from the nature of God, you can't separate them out from the nature of God. It would be like trying to separate cells from life.

Your sentence makes little sense. Asserting that things flow from the nature of god doesn't get you out of the dilemma. You must demonstrate that they wouldn't be good or bad independently of god, which you can't.

[seer]

No, they are subjective to human kind. They don't apply to animals, they don't apply to aliens if they exist, they only apply to human beings, under your view. They rely on your opinion for their existence and there is no objective evidence that your moral views exist independently of your opinion. Punishing and rewarding doesn't make things objectively good or bad, might doesn't make right. And your moral views can be ignored without any consequence (1) because your god doesn't exist, and (2) if he did we are saved by faith, and so I can spend 50 years torturing and eating children for fun and as long as I die a Christian I go to heaven.

No Homer even if God's law only applies to humankind, it still exists objectively to humankind. And the point about punishment or rewards is that even if you had an objective source of ethics there is zero reason to follow it - there are no ultimate consequences if you don't. And yes I define justice as either full punishment for crime or the complete and full rehabilitation of the bad man. In any case no such justice is possible in your universe.

Tell me why slavery is objectively morally wrong. Tell me why torturing and eating children for fun is objectively morally wrong.

You first, tell me why these are objectively wrong in your world. Oh wait, that's right - you can't.