Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

Forced sex among non-human primates is not “rape”, it is natural instinctive behavior for the species. But it is NOT acceptable among human primates because what is considered to be socially acceptable behavior has evolved over time.

It is just as natural and instinctive for humans. And you are still suggesting that non-rape is some how objectively more moral than rape, which is irrational coming from a moral relativist. And did the Hutu or Serbs believe it was socially unacceptable behavior? Do the Muslims? How about in Africa? https://face2faceafrica.com/article/...oms-promote-it

False analogy. The Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and this applies to self-righteous cake makers - and anyone else demanding special privileges.

There you go fibbing again, The Civil Rights Act says nothing abut sexual orientation. In any case the Constitutional freedom of religion trumps The Civil Rights Act . And how is practicing one's religion a special privilege?

[rogue06]

It is just as natural and instinctive for humans. And you are still suggesting that non-rape is some how objectively more moral than rape, which is irrational coming from a moral relativist. And did the Hutu or Serbs believe it was socially unacceptable behavior? Do the Muslims? How about in Africa? https://face2faceafrica.com/article/...oms-promote-it

I've long argued that the major difference between humans and other animals (we are mammals after all) is that we can choose to ignore our instincts.

[JimL]

It is not an attitude Jim, it is the way humans are and act - often. It is nature.

No seer, it is the way some humans act, which is why it was found to be necessary to put the fear of a god into you.

[Tassman]

It is just as natural and instinctive for humans.

It is a natural instinct for non-human apes over which they have no control – unlike the human ape.

And you are still suggesting that non-rape is some how objectively more moral than rape,

Non-rape is more acceptable to current human values than rape just as non-murder is more acceptable to current human values than murder.

which is irrational coming from a moral relativist. And did the Hutu or Serbs believe it was socially unacceptable behavior? Do the Muslims?

No more "irrational" or "moral relativist" than Christians believing slave ownership was acceptable for centuries and justifying it with biblical quotes.

There you go fibbing again, The Civil Rights Act says nothing abut sexual orientation.

So, for you the Civil Rights Act outlaws ALL discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin but NOT discrimination against homosexuals?

In any case the Constitutional freedom of religion trumps The Civil Rights Act.

US citizens are free to worship any god they like. They are not free to interfere with the civil rights of other citizens.

[Tassman]

It is not an attitude Jim, it is the way humans are and act - often. It is nature.

It is also human nature to be curious about how the natural world functions which is why, in the pre-scientific era, we developed the notion of gods to explain where we came from and why we had thunder and lightning etc.

[seer]

It is a natural instinct for non-human apes over which they have no control – unlike the human ape.

Yes, but you are making a moral judgment about humans acting on these instincts. Why?

Non-rape is more acceptable to current human values than rape just as non-murder is more acceptable to current human values than murder.

Whose human values? The Hutu? The Serb? The Africans? Muslims?

So, for you the Civil Rights Act outlaws ALL discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin but NOT discrimination against homosexuals?

Of course, that is legal fact.

US citizens are free to worship any god they like. They are not free to interfere with the civil rights of other citizens.

Nothing in the Constitution says any man has a right to my labor. It does say that the Government can not impinge on my free EXERCISE of religion.

[Tassman]

Yes, but you are making a moral judgment about humans acting on these instincts. Why?

Morality is not just the purview of religion. Morality is the product of evolution, it lends itself to our survival as a species.

Whose human values? The Hutu? The Serb? The Africans? Muslims?

Our current Western human values. Or are you a Hutu?

Of course, that is legal fact.

In practice the Civil Rights Act outlaws ALL discrimination – just ask serial adulterer Kim Davis.

Nothing in the Constitution says any man has a right to my labor. It does say that the Government can not impinge on my free EXERCISE of religion.

And you are free to worship any god you want; you are not free to discriminate against those you don’t like.

[seer]

Morality is not just the purview of religion. Morality is the product of evolution, it lends itself to our survival as a species.

And humans survived just fine when we considered women chattel. So what is your point?

Our current Western human values. Or are you a Hutu?

Well who is objectively right?

In practice the Civil Rights Act outlaws ALL discrimination – just ask serial adulterer Kim Davis.

The law never addressed sexual orientation, and you know that.

And you are free to worship any god you want; you are not free to discriminate against those you don’t like.

Of course I'm free to not be involved in a gay marriage, on religious grounds. And the Civil Rights Act does not apply.

[shunyadragon]

It is not an attitude Jim, it is the way humans are and act - often. It is nature.

This indicates that human nature is natural.

[Tassman]

And humans survived just fine when we considered women chattel.

Do you consider women to be chattel? The suffragettes and women fighting for equal rights would disagree.

So what is your point?

Quality of life is the “point”. People will “survive” even in the most unjust circumstances - the survival instinct is common to all living creatures - but this does not make it right.

Well who is objectively right?

What is “objectively right” is whatever society says is right - and this varies over time. Slave ownership, the subjugation of women, discrimination against a social underclass was ALL practiced by Christians for centuries and considered acceptable at the time. But not now in the West.

The law never addressed sexual orientation, and you know that.

It does by logical implication - as the Supreme Court recognized when it legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.

Of course I'm free to not be involved in a gay marriage, on religious grounds.

You are NOT free to actively discriminate against those you dislike or disapprove of, for whatever reason.

And the Civil Rights Act does not apply.

See above.

[seer]

Do you consider women to be chattel? The suffragettes and women fighting for equal rights would disagree.

Stay on point. Treating women like chattel does not undermine survival, so stop suggesting that.

Quality of life is the “point”. People will “survive” even in the most unjust circumstances - the survival instinct is common to all living creatures - but this does not make it right.

Then what does make it right? Your opinion? Who decides what is just?

What is “objectively right” is whatever society says is right - and this varies over time. Slave ownership, the subjugation of women, discrimination against a social underclass was ALL practiced by Christians for centuries and considered acceptable at the time. But not now in the West.

First you call things unjust then you say that whatever a society says is right is right. Yet those things you describe above are right according to those societies. And you have no objective way to show that the West's present moral beliefs are more valid or correct.

It does by logical implication - as the Supreme Court recognized when it legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.

No it doesn't, the Court did not reference the Civil Rights acts. And so far the Christian bakers, and such, are winning in the courts.

You are NOT free to actively discriminate against those you dislike or disapprove of, for whatever reason.

Of course I am. For instance, if I ran a fruit stand and grew my own fruit I could legally turn anyone away I wanted since the Civil Rights Act is predicated on interstate commerce. And Religious freedom trumps the Civil Rights Act which is not a Constitutional guarantee. The free exercise of religion is...

[JimL]

So what? If one has the power to do so without personal ramifications. Like what the Hutu did to the Tutsi women.

seer, tell me this; if god decided that the acts of theft, rape, murder etc etc were moral acts, would that make them moral, or would you still consider them to be immoral acts?

[Tassman]

Stay on point. Treating women like chattel does not undermine survival, so stop suggesting that.

Treating women like chattel undermines today’s social values – as I made clear.

Then what does make it right? Your opinion? Who decides what is just?

What is “just” varies to a degree from culture to culture over time, e.g. owning slaves was considered “just” for centuries by Christians. It was even justified by scripture.

First you call things unjust then you say that whatever a society says is right is right. Yet those things you describe above are right according to those societies. And you have no objective way to show that the West's present moral beliefs are more valid or correct.

“More valid or correct” than what?

No it doesn't, the Court did not reference the Civil Rights acts. And so far the Christian bakers, and such, are winning in the courts.

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) on June 26, 2015, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. – cited Wiki.

Of course I am. For instance, if I ran a fruit stand and grew my own fruit I could legally turn anyone away I wanted since the Civil Rights Act is predicated on interstate commerce. And Religious freedom trumps the Civil Rights Act which is not a Constitutional guarantee. The free exercise of religion is...

Free exercise of religion is not impeded by the Civil Rights Act, merely discrimination against those you dislike or disapprove of, for whatever reason.

[seer]

seer, tell me this; if god decided that the acts of theft, rape, murder etc etc were moral acts, would that make them moral, or would you still consider them to be immoral acts?

Well He couldn't since His moral character is immutable.

[seer]

Treating women like chattel undermines today’s social values – as I made clear.

No Tass, you tied it into survival of the species. Do I really need to go back and find it? It is a silly argument.

What is “just” varies to a degree from culture to culture over time, e.g. owning slaves was considered “just” for centuries by Christians. It was even justified by scripture.


“More valid or correct” than what?

OK, so our present western values are no more valid or correct than values in the days when women were treated like chattel. Got it...

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) on June 26, 2015, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same-sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. – cited Wiki.

That has nothing to do with the Civil Rights acts nor did they reference it.

Free exercise of religion is not impeded by the Civil Rights Act, merely discrimination against those you dislike or disapprove of, for whatever reason.

Again the specific part of the act that we are discussing only applies to interstate commerce, again: if I ran a fruit stand and grew my own fruit I could legally turn anyone away I wanted, since the Civil Rights Act is predicated on interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act is not a Constitutional requirement - the free exercise of religion is. Again, no man has a right to my labor - whether by force of law or not - we have a word for that...