Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Gay marriage and the loss of civility

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Professor Jerry Coyne has authored a post in which he offers his thoughts on the ruling. In a telling passage which is remarkable for its myopia, he writes:

To those who oppose gay marriage, I say this: Is it really hurting you? What does an opponent have to lose if two homosexuals get married? I suppose they could say it could lead to the dissolution of society, but that’s clearly not the case.

Is it really hurting us? Yes, and for a very simple reason: from now on, those who oppose the Supreme Court’s decision will be branded as hateful bigots who are morally on a par with members of the Ku Klux Klan, despite the fact that most American blacks say gay rights are not the same as civil rights, and despite the fact that the Reverend Martin Luther King, America’s foremost civil rights activist, described the homosexual lifestyle as a “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

A Canadian commenter named Timocrates explains how bad things are going to get in America, in a response to philosopher Ed Feser’s brilliantly written blog article, Marriage and the Matrix (June 29, 2015):

Well, coming from Canada, let me warn my American friends about what you are soon going to be facing for anything remotely like denial of legitimacy or anything short of outright approval of homosexuality and all sexual deviance.

1. Social ostracism:
– In your workplace, where you are likely to be fired and not hired at all if you are known to have “controversial” views on homosexuality;
– You family. Friends stick out much longer than they will, but even they will become much, much more quiet and reserved and increasingly hesitant to help you.

2. Social madness and increased degeneracy:
– Polite social parties may well include the suggestion, nonchalantly, to consider throwing on some porn for entertainment;
– Men in women’s bathrooms in gyms, and they kick the people who try to intervene or complain about it out of the gym
– Endless sensitivity training in the workplace so everybody knows what they are and are not allowed to say or suggest to ensure a ‘safe and comfortable’ working environment ‘for everybody’

3. School torture
– Kids will begin learning about sex and how two moms and two dads are a normal kind of family as early as 6
– Sex-ed will begin as early as Grade 6, including descriptions of oral sex
– Any child who at any time identifies with any sex will be accommodated, whether bathroom or locker room

And the final stage that is now happening in Canada, the Trannies.

Transgender people will increasingly agitate that society, government, institutions and businesses facilitate their lies. They will agitate that dating sites and services simply portray them as their chosen sex without any warning to normal, unsuspecting users of services.

That last line is arguably the scariest for single people, especially single young men. We all know how a man is likely to respond after finding out she isn’t actually a she at all – and with gender change surgeries now, this may come later.

And here’s an excerpt from a poignant article on Patheos by Rebecca Hamilton, an 18-year member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, titled, Gay Marriage Sets Friend Against Friend, Brother Against Brother (July 3, 2015):

I’m going to share my own experiences in trying to deal with the question of saving relationships in the face of gay marriage and abortion. I don’t have a magic bullet to offer. What I bring instead is a hard reality.

Here’s what I’ve learned in my own life about the question of keeping your gay friends and following Christ: You can’t do it. They won’t let you. And that’s it.

The deepest personal wounds I’ve suffered since I became a Christian have to do with gay friends that I loved and trusted with all my heart. Two of my gay friends turned on me in a sudden, absolute and public way.

One of them, in particular, I loved with all my heart. He was — and is — as dear to me as my own blood. We shared so many good things through the years. I trusted him and cherished him.

I never once tried to change him or argued with him about these differences in our beliefs. In fact, I tried to avoid talking to him about it altogether. When he realized that I did not support gay marriage, he flew into a rage and … well … it was a horrible experience.

Among other things, he accused me of lying to him because I hadn’t been more up front on the issue.
Then, he went on the internet and publicly attacked me.

The other friend turned on me over abortion. I know, gay men and the abortion industry seem to be bizarre allies, but the gay men I’ve known are pro abortion fanatics. In fact, a good many gay men work for Planned Parenthood.

I do not have one encouraging word to share with those of you who want to keep your relationships with gay people and still follow the Church. My experience is that, no matter how you try, you cannot keep your relationships with your gay friends and follow your faith. They will not let you.

Even sadder, my experience is that they do not just end the friendship. They then go out and do everything they can to hurt you.

I can honestly say that I have not retaliated. I have never broken the confidences they shared with me. I have never attacked them. I have never tried to hurt them. And I never will.

Representative Hamilton adds:

I know one homosexual person who has been willing to accept me as an individual and at least be professional friends with me. When I told her I opposed gay marriage, she said, “I would never try to force you to violate your personal morality.”

I was so grateful to her I almost cried.

But she is unique in my experience. And, as I said, we have a professional friendship, not a deep personal friendship.

Finally, in a recent article on RealClearReligion titled, Beware of the Gaystapo (July 6, 2015), Catholic author Mark Judge equates the treatment of Christians by the gay rights movement to a form of emotional abuse:

Christian America is being emotionally abused by the gay rights movement.

Emotional abuse is a sinister human reality, arguably more iniquitous in its slow-drip subtlety than outright physical abuse or political aggression. In emotional abuse a partner … is lured in by love and affection, only to have their spouse or significant other exert more and more psychological and spiritual control, then curdling into abuse. The abuser might start as a loving person with a slight edge of sarcasm, but over time they methodically pick apart the self-esteem of their partner. The occasional cutting quip becomes a steady stream of put-downs. Nothing the abused person can do is enough.

Eventually there is an atmosphere of chaos and unpredictability. Victims often have emotional breakdowns…

In his article, Judge chronicles the events leading up to this abuse:

In the beginning, advocates for gay marriage assured us that they loved America. The country wasn’t perfect, but mostly what gay activists wanted was the ability to express love without violent reprisal. They didn’t want to control the rest of us, or dictate terms or tell us what to believe. No one would lose their job or business because of gay marriage…

For a few years things went well. Gay people got to live more openly. There were more homosexual characters on television and in politics. States were debating gay marriage.

But then something changed. Liberals didn’t just accept civil unions, they demanded gay marriage — or else.

Anyone who didn’t only accept gay marriage but celebrate it was isolated as a hateful bigot. Bullying and gas-lighting of resisters became common. Gay marriage advocates ignored or denied that they had ever argued that no one would lose their job if gay marriage was passed… Like an abuser who refuses to ever acknowledge wrong doing, preferring to turn the tables on the abused, gay marriage advocates now refuse to answer the most simple questions. To ask “What is marriage?” is to be emotionally blackmailed (shame!), isolated (go back to the 1950s!) and bullied (damn right, you’ll lose your business).

Judge’s last question, “What is marriage?” gets right to the heart of the matter. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court majority, in their recent ruling (Obergefell vs. Hodges), nowhere attempted to provide a clear definition of the term “marriage.” Instead, we were told that the meaning of marriage has evolved over time, despite documents cited by dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts, showing that the term “marriage” has been understood for centuries to mean: the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Much play has been made in the media of Elena Kagan’s facile argument that if marriage were really about procreation, as traditionalists supposedly hold, then there should be laws on the books prohibiting elderly couples from typing the knot, as there is no chance that they will procreate. But the argument overlooks two very important points.

First, what defines marriage is not procreation , but its essentially monogamous character: it is a union of one man and one woman, for life. (There have of course been societies which tolerated polygamy, but the practice invariably results in the exploitation of women. What’s more, even in societies where the practice is allowed, it is relatively uncommon: the vast majority of men have one wife.) Now, there are heterosexual couples who have what they call “open marriages,” these are relatively uncommon, and even today in America, 90% of people still regard adultery as morally wrong. However, the great majority of gay “marriages” are not sexually monogamous: they are open relationships. And even if there are some gay couples practicing monogamy, I know of no gay couple who are willing to declare that open relationships between gays (or straight people, for that matter) are not real marriages. For this reason alone, then, a strong case can be made on legal grounds for refusing to recognize gay marriage: doing so would inevitably force people to publicly sanction relationships in which sexual monogamy is no longer even recognized as an ideal. That would in turn mean that schoolchildren are no longer taught that married people should be faithful to one another until death do them part.

Second, even if it is not the case that every marriage is potentially procreative, it is certainly true that the institution of marriage would not exist, were it not for the fact that humans procreate sexually. In a hypothetical world where intelligent life-forms reproduced asexually, there would be no marriage, since there would be no need for it. Why, then, do we allow elderly couples to wed? Simple enough: because the bond between them is of the same sort as that existing between couples who wed when they were young, had children, and have now grown old. In both cases, the couples in question physically express their love in exactly the same way, and under the same conditions: they promise to be faithful to each other until death do them part. Gay marriage does not even get a foot in the door here: the physical expression of their love is quite different, and there is usually no intention to remain sexually monogamous.

In his recent post, Professor Coyne argues that people who oppose gay marriage must do so because they regard it as un-Biblical and/or unnatural. But the argument I put forward in the foregoing paragraphs made no mention of the Bible or of natural law. All it assumed was that marriage is essentially monogamous – a sentiment still upheld by the vast majority of Americans.

But I can safely bet that gay rights advocates in America will make no attempt to respond to arguments like the one I have put forward above, in civil terms. Ridicule, scorn and abuse are weapons which suit their cause better, and no attempt must be spared to make their opponents look absurd. If Professor Coyne wants to know how the legalization of gay marriage has hurt ordinary people who oppose it, I can sum it up in one sentence: thoughtful public discussions of the pros and cons of gay marriage will no longer be possible, because one side has been demonized.

What do readers think?

Comments
As an outsider, i see the US transforming to a Neo-Marxist state, that's why there is so much fury for homogeneity (and not equality), that means no race, no religion, no sex and so on... It smells like 1984! As for homosexuals, both homosexual women and men have sexual organs that fertilize each other so its not a matter of nature but nurture, there is no homosexuality, there is only psychological impotence. The reasons for homosexuality are psychological and the human mind can change them because the brain is plastic. Gay agenda will say that its about love and we much love each other but they don't mean it, i love men but i am not attracted to them sexually, i love my brother and my father and my friends, homosexuals don't want to decriminalize love, they want to decriminalize sodomy and sodomy leads to bacterial diseases that affect the rest of the population which is not homosexual. http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns According to the God of the Atheists, chance, if an event happens more often it will result to a new event, if anal sex is protected by the government as something normal, bacterial diseases are more probable to happen. For the above reasons gay marriage should not be recognized as equal but as a parody.JimFit
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
StephenB @281
A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
I’ve given that to you and you’ve not appreciated it. So be it, you demand a “yes” or “no” answer where it is not appropriate. It depends for the reasons I gave.
You know very well that the rationale for allowing gay marriage would also allow for any kind of marriage among consenting adults.
I know very well that you are wrong. Homosexuality and transgenderism are inherent traits; incestuousness is not. Polygamy and polyandry are not. The logic of Obergefell does not support all kinds of marriage, only same-sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, inter-faith marriage, and different-sex marriage.
If the fourteenth amendment “protects” gays against the traditional definition of marriage, then it protects everyone, including fathers and their daughters, or mothers with their sons.
FACEPALM! The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect against “definitions”, it protects against illegitimate discrimination, which is what bans on same-sex marriage were.
You can provide no rational argument that would allow gay marriage, while at the same time, disallowing marriage between one’s own family members. I know it and you know it.
I’ve done it many times. You don’t LIKE it, but I’ve done it. Same-sex couples are citizens too, their homosexuality is an inherent trait, forbidding same-sex marriage effectively forbids all marriage because gays are not sexually compatible with women and lesbians are not sexually compatible with men. Their marriages cause no harm to other couples and in accord with the concepts of Religious Liberty and EP, there is no legitimate reason to ban their marriages. As for “marriage between one’s own family members” I have not disallowed them (nor allowed them). The question remains open.
Feel free to explain how “it depends” ...
I’ve answered this already, and you ignored those answers. Why would I enable you to ignore them again? Do your homework for yourself. StephenB @283
A lawgiver is required for a moral law. All effects require causes.
... but not causes need not be persons. There’s no effect from any set of moral laws (i.e a moral system) which requires a lawgiver as the cause.
Of course, they [gravity or the conservation of energy] require lawgivers for their existence. Where do you think laws come from if not from the lawgiver that causes theme to be?
In regard to natural phenomena, the term “law” merely refers to a description of what happens. No lawgiver is needed to command matter to exert gravitational force, it just does as part of its nature.
If the natural moral law is religious simply because it requires a lawgiver, then the laws of gravity and conservation are also religious for the same reason. That should be obvious.
This is nonsense. You regularly attest to the role your God has in creating or understanding your “natural moral law”; this makes it religious. There are times in your subsequent comments where you do so again. The laws of nature do not need a deity to explain or understand them.
The natural moral law is not religious in the sense that it requires no revelation or no faith to be apprehended. That is the epistemological fact. It can be known by reason. Reason is not a religious concept.
Reason is not religious, and if we can discuss your “natural moral law” FULLY AND COMPLETELY without ever referencing ANY deity, then it would not be religious. Can your “natural moral law” be fully understood and appreciated by a confirmed atheist? Will there be anything the atheist will miss or misapprehend?
I have no idea what you mean by the word “religious.” I have to sort it out because you don’t define it.
I am not going to get sidetracked in a semantic dispute over the exact meaning of “religious”. But I will say that any concept or idea that depends on a deity to explain its origins or attributes or to understand its meaning or effect is thereby religious. If your “natural moral law” had to be created by a deity, it is religion. StephenB @284
SA, ... Why would the ability to consent be a factor at all. As Justice Kennedy says “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life…”
Oh Stephen! This is so sad. Really. Without the requirement of consent, coercion is permitted. If coercion is permitted, liberty dies. You need to re-read J. Kennedy’s words (which you cite but do not understand). If coercion is permitted, how can one “define one’s own concept of existence, etc.? A coerced person is acting on someone else’s concepts. The coerced person’s liberty is lost. To preserve liberty, it is necessary to prevent coercion. To prevent coercion, it is necessary to require consent. That is why the ability to consent is crucial to liberty. Silver Asiatic @288
Moral law is different from patterns or order built into nature (mathematics, logic) which are ‘laws’ but are not built on moral choice and consequences/rewards.
Very true and includes the physical laws (gravity, etc.), This difference is why the term “law” confuses some (no names).
...a lawgiver is required because morality only has meaning if there is a final arbitration of moral goodness.
Why would this be necessary? Morality is a set of rules that guide our conduct; not merely a post-hoc evaluation of how well we did. As you said above, moral laws are built on consequences and rewards. These do not require a lawgiver; nature hands out consequences and rewards constantly.
Morality is a journey up a hierarchical scale of values. Moral law is goal-oriented, moving a person towards greater moral goodness. But progress and meaning or understanding of that process can only be judged by the law-giver.
This is one opinion, and not a persuasive one. It’s certainly not compelling. And if you are one of those folks who thinks that morality needs to be “objective” then the Big Problem remains: only persons who actually hear the sound of their deity’s voice can know “objectively” what the Final Arbitration decided. For the rest of us heathens, morality can only be subjective. The judgements of some lawgiver post-hoc are worthless. If there’s a moral dispute, only God can give an “objective” resolution, and then only if God gives His answer directly to the disputants. Any other resolution is subjective. StephenB @289
I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way.
I can accept that.
So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?
Wrong at the outset. Where matter comes from is a reasonable question; it’s an important question, and getting it right is Very Important. Asking “who” presumes the answer; that someone created it. That is an unwarranted assumption that gets in the way of truth-seeking.
If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good.
I can agree with most of this. It’s preferable to explain ordered regularity by some kind of empirically testable phenomena. Philosophical perspectives are too vague or ambiguous to be reliable.
I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver.
I thought we were looking for the truth, not for “comfort” If we all just pick the answer we are comfortable with, then the small matter of TRUTH gets lost.
Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth.
Truth is not a thing, it is not a unified thing. Truth is just what is or what happens. There are many truths; one being that we only presume all truths are “compatible”; Gödel’s theorem makes that uncertain.
The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.
The former is unreliable because it assumes what it sets out to prove. Before we can reasonably probe the why we need to prove the why even exists. That remains undone.
The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.
A claim for which there is no evidence except that it’s a comfortable idea. In fact, it appears to be the opposite: disorder and irregularity demand explanations were order and regularity appear to be just an attribute of existence. Certainly, if as you say above, that ...truth is unified, there can only be one truth then order and regularity are built into truth.
With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature.
Complete change of topic. Natural and moral laws are categorically different. Natural or “physical” laws (as you wrote above) are ...really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature . Natural laws cannot be violated. One ignores them at their peril, but they CANNOT be violated. It is physically impossible to do so. Moral laws are rules of conduct which humans can obey or ignore at their discretion, and whose violations can totally escape consequence.
What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).
You must be aware that Philosophy has numerous, contradictory answers to every question. Aristotle and Aquinas are not Philosophy, they are just a couple of guys; one who died 23 centuries ago; the other who appears to have repudiated his life’s work. Philosophy does not speak with one voice except if you cherry-pick it.
A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes.
Here the word “good” is sloppy. A FUNCTIONAL can opener is one that opens cans; a FUNCTIONAL pencil one that can be used for writing. (Pencils don’t write; sometimes people use pencils to write).
A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries.
This is foolish. Pencils don’t attempt to do anything, much less to act as different objects. A foolish person will destroy a pencil using it as a can opener, but they might succeed if they try hard enough. But there’s no fault on the pencil. The pencil tried nothing.
A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday.
Here is the crux of the matter: are humans even designed? Much less were they designed to do certain things? Says who? This is a perfectly fine religious theory, but like all religious theories, there is no rational or moral obligation to agree with it. If this is the import of your “natural moral law” then again you are making it religious.
Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.
Since we haven’t established what the nature of humans is, I have to again ask: says who? Some religious persons will agree, but they will disagree among themselves about what actual behaviors are good or bad.
Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature.
Again you connect your “natural moral law” to religious concepts. Either way, It’s not binding on anyone who does not believe in it or agree with the details you propose for it. It is your “comfortable” opinion; nothing more.
Break it, and you (and others) will suffer.
Sometimes. Maybe. People DO get away with murder.
If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature.
Changing the name does not make it more rational or true or less religious. It remains only another religious opinion, one of many, none of which bind those who do not believe in them.
.Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals.
Why? We know animal are in fact capable of generosity and cruelty; why are they not bound? They are capable of volition, why are they not bound?
Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, ...
Pencils cannot do this. Pencils cannot act; they cannot choose; they cannot assume.
If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.
Unless, of course, there’s valid meaning to “good” and “bad” unconnected to any religious dogma about supposed “purposes”. I’ve proposed one on this site. It’s not even difficult.
These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up.
Something had to cause things, but a Creator-Person is not required. This is just another of your “comfortable” opinions. In spite of kairosfocus’s high praise, Silver Asiatic makes a better case (@288) than you do. sean s.sean samis
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Mung
SB, Can you explain why the natural moral law requires a lawgiver? ETA: I don’t believe in natural laws, I believe in natures/essences. So keep that in mind.
Very interesting comment. Let me try to say something that might bring us together. I assume that we agree that a physical "law," is really just a human paradigm that describes a "law-like" regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the "nature" of matter to be moved in this way. So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature? If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good. I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver. The philosopher calls it one thing, the scientist, another. Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth. The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how. The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak. With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature. What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas). A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday. It is their nature. Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them. Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature. Break it, and you (and others) will suffer. So, in that sense, I think the word "law" has some merit. If you prefer to dispense with the word "law," we can call it the morality proper to human nature. Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals. Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, a human will destroy himself by assuming the nature of (and acting like) an animal. He will never fulfill his destiny, which is to love and be with God. In the end, he will not be a good person, he will be a bad person. He acted against his nature and his reason for being. If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn't exist. These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up. So, too, in this sense the "law of human nature" or, if you like, the morality of human nature, requires a lawgiver or, if you like, a first cause, -- or nature giver.StephenB
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Moral law is different from patterns or order built into nature (mathematics, logic) which are 'laws' but are not built on moral choice and consequences/rewards. In this case, a lawgiver is required because morality only has meaning if there is a final arbitration of moral goodness. Morality is a journey up a hierarchical scale of values. Moral law is goal-oriented, moving a person towards greater moral goodness. But progress and meaning or understanding of that process can only be judged by the law-giver.Silver Asiatic
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
sean s
Some things are so obvious that they need no explanation to ordinary persons.
I think you'd be surprised at how otherwise ordinary persons fail to accept some very obvious truths.Silver Asiatic
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
SB, Can you explain why the natural moral law requires a lawgiver? ETA: I don't believe in natural laws, I believe in natures/essences. So keep that in mind.Mung
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
"“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life…”" Well, according to my concept of existence justice Kennedy doesn't exist.Mung
July 20, 2015
July
07
Jul
20
20
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
True – there’s no argument against that. A consistent interpretation of 14h amendment would allow for intra-family marriage, and even your modifier “that are of age” is an open question that could simply be re-defined (as some are working for already).
SA, that's about the size of it. Why would the ability to consent be a factor at all. As Justice Kennedy says “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life…”StephenB
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Rationally and logically, no lawgiver is needed for a moral system.
A lawgiver is required for a moral law. All effects require causes. Or do you deny logic as well. Meanwhile, why did you substitute the words moral system for the words moral law. Is that supposed to be some kind of linguistic trick?
Since neither gravity nor the conservation of energy require a lawgiver, the question is meaningless.
Of course, they require lawgivers for their existence. Where do you think laws come from if not from the lawgiver that causes theme to be? You think they just "poof" into existence from nothing? For you, it seems, effects do not require causes at all.
The imperatives of nature suffice. If your “natural moral law” needs a god to account for it, then it’s religion.
If the natural moral law is religious simply because it requires a lawgiver, then the laws of gravity and conservation are also religious for the same reason. That should be obvious.
I know you keep saying your “natural moral law” is not religion, but then you keep reasserting God’s necessary involvement.
The natural moral law is not religious in the sense that it requires no revelation or no faith to be apprehended. That is the epistemological fact. It can be known by reason. Reason is not a religious concept. The ontological fact that the natural moral law cannot come to exist without a lawgiver is another matter. If you want to call that phase of it, the ontological phase, religious, feel free. I have no idea what you mean by the word "religious." I have to sort it out because you don't define it.StephenB
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
StephenB
Feel free to explain how “it depends” relates to the fourteenth amendment, equal protection, and gay marriage vs. intra-family marriage that are of age.
True - there's no argument against that. A consistent interpretation of 14h amendment would allow for intra-family marriage, and even your modifier "that are of age" is an open question that could simply be re-defined (as some are working for already).Silver Asiatic
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
sean samis
And I’m waiting for you to realize that not all questions have “yes” or “no” answers.
The simple truth is that you are afraid to answer. I knew that you would be. You know very well that the rationale for allowing gay marriage would also allow for any kind of marriage among consenting adults. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. If the fourteenth amendment "protects" gays against the traditional definition of marriage, then it protects everyone, including fathers and their daughters, or mothers with their sons. You can provide no rational argument that would allow gay marriage, while at the same time, disallowing marriage between one's own family members. I know it and you know it.
Many have “it depends” answers; these are quite common in matters of law. I’ve already listed the matters on which I think this one depends. Complaining about this won’t change my answer: It depends.
Feel free to explain how "it depends" relates to the fourteenth amendment, equal protection, and gay marriage vs. intra-family marriage that are of age. Why would you stage such a bluff? Didn't you know that I would call it?StephenB
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
I’m sure glad I was too busy to get sucked into a silly debate about ladybugs! StephenB @234
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to tell me if a marriage between a man and his 20 year old daughter is a constitutional right.
And I’m waiting for you to realize that not all questions have “yes” or “no” answers. Many have “it depends” answers; these are quite common in matters of law. I’ve already listed the matters on which I think this one depends. Complaining about this won’t change my answer: It depends. harry @237
If there is a good God Who created humanity and intended for us to behave in a manner that reflected His goodness, then He would build a conscience into us. He did. We all know we have one. We have all felt guilty at one time or another.
This is compelling only if there’s no other conceivable source of a conscience. There are other explanations, so your argument holds no water.
...there is such a thing as feeling guilty about that which there is really no reason to feel guilty. Many of us, upon realizing that, have experienced a happy moment of enlightenment.
Agreed. But the fact that our consciences can fail us with false-positives or false negatives points to its natural origin. “If there is a good God Who created humanity and intended for us to behave in a manner that reflected His goodness, then He would build a conscience into usthat we could rely on. But your example shows we cannot.
Our conscience is natural.
Agreed.
It was built into our very nature by God.
No evidence of that; to the contrary.
Unless we are sociopaths who never feel guilty about anything, we eventually get to a point as adults where our natural conscience is a very reliable guide.
That sociopaths exist points to the entirely natural origin of our consciences, and away from any deity’s involvement. If our consciences are due to God, God did a crappy job.
For mankind’s consciences to work as God intended, they had to become correctly informed.
If this is what God “intended”, then God could have made sure Himself. That our consciences must be formed by experience indicates benevolent deities have nothing to do with them.
Well, after the Fall, ... something like this might have happened ...
Or something significantly different from your tale might have happened.
The moral of this much too simplistic story is that ...
The moral of your much-too-simplistic story is that creative writing can fill in where reason is not wanted. Your story could be easily adapted to explain how a moral system arose WITHOUT ANY DEITY. Piece’o cake.
God, in His interactions with humanity recorded in the Old Testament, affirmed the natural law that mankind should have already figured out, a law which makes clear: Don’t kill your neighbor, or take his stuff, or have relations with his wife, or his animals, or him.
So, if we can find a moral law in nature, why do we need to add any deity to the mix? My point is entirely in accord with your statement: “...the natural law that mankind should have already figured out, a law which makes clear: Don’t kill your neighbor, or take his stuff, or have relations with his wife, or his animals, or him.” As your statement implies: No deity is required. Silver Asiatic @240
In the case of the US government, those who accepted the natural law became the authorities that built the government. They had the right to establish a constitution based on the natural law itself – so their authority in establishing laws came from that. They cited natural law as the basis for human rights also.
Who gave the US government the right to tell us what is good or bad? The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause specifically DENIES that power. Governments can tell us what’s legal or not, but not what’s good or bad. The concept of Religious Liberty denies that power to anyone but the individual deciding for themselves what is good or bad.
As for those who do not accept that there are any moral laws inherent in human nature, they have really forfeited their rights to debate this.
In other words, anyone who disagrees with you has lost their rights. That is arrogant nonsense. Never mind that I agree that there are moral laws inherent in human nature. That is my entire point!!
...those who deny that the natural law exists, cannot at the same time argue for a certain interpretation of it.
No one denies that the natural law exists; it obviously does. I deny it has any authority over anyone. I don’t argue for any interpretation of it, it’s extralegal and without legitimate power over anyone.
The natural moral law is a basis for understanding all specific laws that follow from it.
The so-called “natural moral law” is no more than one peculiar way of explaining laws. It’s not the only one, it’s not the best one, it’s not a necessary one. It’s just the subjective preference of some people, and not a very good or useful tool.
Gay marriage is a betrayal of trust – for those who understand marriage as one-man one-woman. So, it leads to unjustified harms to those who are betrayed by the state’s approval of it.
Nonsense. The State has never promised you to make your opinions the Law of the Land; the State has never promised you to enforce the norms of your choosing. The State can never betray a trust that it was never obligated to in the first place. The State has expressly and explicitly promised to protect the Religious Liberty and Equality before the Law of ALL PERSONS, a category that includes same-sex couples. Obergefell was the State’s recognition of its promise and its past betrayal of that promise
Why is fidelity necessary, and why is fidelity measured by sexual conduct and not, instead, by other things?
Some things are so obvious that they need no explanation to ordinary persons. This is one of those. In any event, what fidelity means in the course of marriage vows is a fact, and adultery is a betrayal of that promise. Why those promises are made or why they are necessary is different question. The fact is that they are what they are.
Many humans respond to gay marriage as a betrayal of the meaning of marriage.
... but not one of them can show an actual promise by anyone which has been betrayed. These people had an expectation, but it was an unreasoned expectation. These people need to reevaluate their expectations.
This would mean that adultery only has meaning in terms of how the state defines it. The state could therefore proclaim that adultery does not exist. Since you equate adultery to to infidelity, by defining adultery as a non-existent act, we would also eliminate all infidelity.
There is much about this I reject, but again, to what end would the State do such loopy things? In the age of no-fault divorce, the State’s definition of adultery is irrelevant. If the State made an unreasoned and pointless definition and then attached legal sanctions to it, the State’s changed definition becomes illegitimate. And all this is of course your way of complaining about the supposed “change in the definition of marriage” by Obergefell. SCOTUS did not change the meaning of marriage, they recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry; that’s a whole different thing. Silver Asiatic @241
Where in the material cosmos is “truth”?
Truth is not a thing to be found in a place. Truth is a term that refers to the things that just are or just happen.
Where also is “the human condition”?
Wherever we are, there it is.
How, biologically can we find a human condition
In our biology, in our behavior and needs, in our history.
...and where, scientifically does this difference appear (between humans and chimps, for example)? Where, materially, can such distinctions be made?
If you can distinguish between humans and chimps, you have already found the locus of the difference. Some of the human condition are biological and shared with all other living things, or with our nearest relatives (primates). Some are unique to us.
The condemnation of homosexuality exists.
True; but it is not justified by the truth of nature, history, nor the human condition. Many things exist which are not justified.
There is no true or false, good or bad in matter.
Of course there’s true or false in matter; what is true exists or happens. What is false does not. Like anything, “good” and “bad” need to be defined in this context to be evaluated.
Nothing acts for a purpose.
Not true. Humans do things for a purpose all the time. We are also beginning to realize that many other species are similarly capable of planning and forethought. We don’t need a deity to give us purpose.
Water exists. Trees exist. Stones exist. Planets exist. Condemnation of homosexuality exists. There is no basis in materialism to claim any of those things as better than another.
There is, but only with a rational basis for deciding what is better or worse in the given situation.
In materialism, there is no goal at all.
You don’t know anything about materialism, so you have no standing to say whether materialism has a place for goals or not. Humans (and probably many other species) usually have goals. Materialists have no reason to deny this. And I’ve never met one who did.
In theism there are goals for moral improvement. It’s not enough just to do no harm. A person must grow, morally, to become more like God. To have morality without goals is irrational.
Take out the reference to God and materialists have no basis for objection. And I should not have to point out the ample evidence that theists are not morally superior to anyone or anything.
When we seek what God wants, he will show us.
From personal experience I know this to be false. “Sometimes” maybe, but certainly not always. Certainly not for me.
First – it hasn’t happened yet. With patience, you can indeed discover that God will guide you.
You presume much about me. Patience I have exercised. Maybe some deity will show up eventually, but until then, I still need to know how to live; as do the many others like me. That’s why we need to find moral guidance in nature. Luckily, that’s easy enough and more than sufficient morally. Any time God wants to join the conversation, He’s quite welcome.
But even still, it’s good to be open to what other people have to say about God. You’re right – it does take trust.
Trust whom? If I cannot trust humans to just reason from nature to what is right, then I cannot just trust humans who claim to have got their rules from God. If some deity shows up, I’ll deal with that then. Until then, I need to live my life.
But why should we trust ourselves alone? Do we know everything there is about God? We trust experts in other fields where we can’t evaluate results, even in science.
What makes a person an “expert” about God? Certainly not God without verified evidence of God’s saying-so. In science, the evidence and reasoning behind claims are available to all to see and examine. Even if I don’t have the expertise to evaluate the claims, I can watch the consensus build or erode, and base my conclusions on that. In religion, when I see inexplicable claims about God, my questions are thrown back at me. “God is mysterious”, “God is transcendental”, etc. I am told to trust the prophet. I have no way of knowing who is an “expert” and who is just a bloviator. Sorry, no. I can trust science, I cannot trust religion until God actually talks to me.
Why not trust people who have been seeking God for a long time, and who show goodness in their spiritual life? These can be people alive today, or saints of the past.
Why not? First, because you assume I can figure out what goodness is BEFORE having a spiritual awakening. If I can do that, I don’t need these “saints”! Second, because these “saints” have not arrived at anything remotely like a consensus about God it would be irrational to trust them. Religious disputes are endemic and pervasive. Even on this exact topic (same-sex marriage) they dispute. Their collective testimony amounts to nothing. StephenB @242
Ontologically, there is only one possible source for the Natural Moral Law and that would be the Lawgiver, which is God. That is what I understand harry to be saying. I have made the same point on this thread.
Rationally and logically, no lawgiver is needed for a moral system. The imperatives of nature suffice. If your “natural moral law” needs a god to account for it, then it’s religion. I know you keep saying your “natural moral law” is not religion, but then you keep reasserting God’s necessary involvement.
Would you say that the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy are “emphatically religious” simply because they require a law-giver to exist?
Since neither gravity nor the conservation of energy require a lawgiver, the question is meaningless.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your answer: If the fourteenth makes it constitutional to change the meaning of marriage as one man/one woman on the grounds that all persons have that right, why would it not also apply to fathers and daughters or, for that matter, fathers and sons?
Answered more than once. Silver Asiatic @244
The topic was adultery. You don’t like it, then don’t do it. The state, on that basis, should be as tolerant of adultery as gay marriage.
The State is tolerant of adultery. There’s no criminal penalty. However, the difference between same-sex marriage and adultery is that the former causes no actual harm, the later does. Silver Asiatic @246
Should the state make it illegal for one spouse to tell any sort of lie to the other?
Without a legitimate purpose, no.
“The state is largely tolerant of adultery.” Therefore adultery is not an integral component of the marriage contract.
Interesting. The easy lack of fidelity in same-sex marriage was one of the common arguments against it.
It’s the same harm as caused by pornography. It’s morally offensive to those who oppose it and believed by them to be harmful to society.
This is not a harm. Racists oppose racial equality and believe it harmful to society. Same-o-same-o.
There is a trust that the state will uphold moral norms. When the state approved gay marriage, it was a betrayal of trust.
Unless the State explicitly and expressly made this promise, this betrayal is imaginary. The State DID EXPLICITLY AND EXPRESSLY promise to protect Religious Liberty and Equality before the Law for ALL PERSONS. harry @252
Would any of you agree that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being who is in no way a threat to others?
Yes. harry @262
Imperet tibi Dominus.
I wish He would, because then He’d finally reveal himself to me. So far all I have is silence... harry @271
Zachriel
Of course it’s wrong.
Is it always wrong because it is objectively wrong?
There is no substantial difference between objective wrongs and subjective wrong; they only differ according to our confidence in our conclusion; a confidence that is never 100%. It’s always wrong because there’s no circumstance that makes it not wrong. sean s.sean samis
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
I’m sure glad I was too busy to get sucked into a silly debate about ladybugs! StephenB @234
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for you to tell me if a marriage between a man and his 20 year old daughter is a constitutional right.
And I’m waiting for you to realize that not all questions have “yes” or “no” answers. Many have “it depends” answers; these are quite common in matters of law. I’ve already listed the matters on which I think this one depends. Complaining about this won’t change my answer: It depends. harry @237
If there is a good God Who created humanity and intended for us to behave in a manner that reflected His goodness, then He would build a conscience into us. He did. We all know we have one. We have all felt guilty at one time or another.
This is compelling only if there’s no other conceivable source of a conscience. There are other explanations, so your argument holds no water.
...there is such a thing as feeling guilty about that which there is really no reason to feel guilty. Many of us, upon realizing that, have experienced a happy moment of enlightenment.
Agreed. But the fact that our consciences can fail us with false-positives or false negatives points to its natural origin. “If there is a good God Who created humanity and intended for us to behave in a manner that reflected His goodness, then He would build a conscience into usthat we could rely on. But your example shows we cannot.
Our conscience is natural.
Agreed.
It was built into our very nature by God.
No evidence of that; to the contrary.
Unless we are sociopaths who never feel guilty about anything, we eventually get to a point as adults where our natural conscience is a very reliable guide.
That sociopaths exist points to the entirely natural origin of our consciences, and away from any deity’s involvement. If our consciences are due to God, God did a crappy job.
For mankind’s consciences to work as God intended, they had to become correctly informed.
If this is what God “intended”, then God could have made sure Himself. That our consciences must be formed by experience indicates benevolent deities have nothing to do with them.
Well, after the Fall, ... something like this might have happened ...
Or something significantly different from your tale might have happened.
The moral of this much too simplistic story is that ...
The moral of your much-too-simplistic story is that creative writing can fill in where reason is not wanted. Your story could be easily adapted to explain how a moral system arose WITHOUT ANY DEITY. Piece’o cake.
God, in His interactions with humanity recorded in the Old Testament, affirmed the natural law that mankind should have already figured out, a law which makes clear: Don’t kill your neighbor, or take his stuff, or have relations with his wife, or his animals, or him.
So, if we can find a moral law in nature, why do we need to add any deity to the mix? My point is entirely in accord with your statement: “...the natural law that mankind should have already figured out, a law which makes clear: Don’t kill your neighbor, or take his stuff, or have relations with his wife, or his animals, or him.” As your statement implies: No deity is required. Silver Asiatic @240
In the case of the US government, those who accepted the natural law became the authorities that built the government. They had the right to establish a constitution based on the natural law itself – so their authority in establishing laws came from that. They cited natural law as the basis for human rights also.
Who gave the US government the right to tell us what is good or bad? The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause specifically DENIES that power. Governments can tell us what’s legal or not, but not what’s good or bad. The concept of Religious Liberty denies that power to anyone but the individual deciding for themselves what is good or bad.
As for those who do not accept that there are any moral laws inherent in human nature, they have really forfeited their rights to debate this.
In other words, anyone who disagrees with you has lost their rights. That is arrogant nonsense. Never mind that I agree that there are moral laws inherent in human nature. That is my entire point!!
...those who deny that the natural law exists, cannot at the same time argue for a certain interpretation of it.
No one denies that the natural law exists; it obviously does. I deny it has any authority over anyone. I don’t argue for any interpretation of it, it’s extralegal and without legitimate power over anyone.
The natural moral law is a basis for understanding all specific laws that follow from it.
The so-called “natural moral law” is no more than one peculiar way of explaining laws. It’s not the only one, it’s not the best one, it’s not a necessary one. It’s just the subjective preference of some people, and not a very good or useful tool.
Gay marriage is a betrayal of trust – for those who understand marriage as one-man one-woman. So, it leads to unjustified harms to those who are betrayed by the state’s approval of it.
Nonsense. The State has never promised you to make your opinions the Law of the Land; the State has never promised you to enforce the norms of your choosing. The State can never betray a trust that it was never obligated to in the first place. The State has expressly and explicitly promised to protect the Religious Liberty and Equality before the Law of ALL PERSONS, a category that includes same-sex couples. Obergefell was the State’s recognition of its promise and its past betrayal of that promise
Why is fidelity necessary, and why is fidelity measured by sexual conduct and not, instead, by other things?
Some things are so obvious that they need no explanation to ordinary persons. This is one of those. In any event, what fidelity means in the course of marriage vows is a fact, and adultery is a betrayal of that promise. Why those promises are made or why they are necessary is different question. The fact is that they are what they are.
Many humans respond to gay marriage as a betrayal of the meaning of marriage.
... but not one of them can show an actual promise by anyone which has been betrayed. These people had an expectation, but it was an unreasoned expectation. These people need to reevaluate their expectations.
This would mean that adultery only has meaning in terms of how the state defines it. The state could therefore proclaim that adultery does not exist. Since you equate adultery to to infidelity, by defining adultery as a non-existent act, we would also eliminate all infidelity.
There is much about this I reject, but again, to what end would the State do such loopy things? In the age of no-fault divorce, the State’s definition of adultery is irrelevant. If the State made an unreasoned and pointless definition and then attached legal sanctions to it, the State’s changed definition becomes illegitimate. And all this is of course your way of complaining about the supposed “change in the definition of marriage” by Obergefell. SCOTUS did not change the meaning of marriage, they recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry; that’s a whole different thing. Silver Asiatic @241
Where in the material cosmos is “truth”?
Truth is not a thing to be found in a place. Truth is a term that refers to the things that just are or just happen.
Where also is “the human condition”?
Wherever we are, there it is.
How, biologically can we find a human condition
In our biology, in our behavior and needs, in our history.
...and where, scientifically does this difference appear (between humans and chimps, for example)? Where, materially, can such distinctions be made?
If you can distinguish between humans and chimps, you have already found the locus of the difference. Some of the human condition are biological and shared with all other living things, or with our nearest relatives (primates). Some are unique to us.
The condemnation of homosexuality exists.
True; but it is not justified by the truth of nature, history, nor the human condition. Many things exist which are not justified. <blockquote There is no true or false, good or bad in matter. Of course there’s true or false in matter; what is true exists or happens. What is false does not. Like anything, “good” and “bad” need to be defined in this context to be evaluated.
Nothing acts for a purpose.
Not true. Humans do things for a purpose all the time. We are also beginning to realize that many other species are similarly capable of planning and forethought. We don’t need a deity to give us purpose.
Water exists. Trees exist. Stones exist. Planets exist. Condemnation of homosexuality exists. There is no basis in materialism to claim any of those things as better than another.
There is, but only with a rational basis for deciding what is better or worse in the given situation.
In materialism, there is no goal at all.
You don’t know anything about materialism, so you have no standing to say whether materialism has a place for goals or not. Humans (and probably many other species) usually have goals. Materialists have no reason to deny this. And I’ve never met one who did.
In theism there are goals for moral improvement. It’s not enough just to do no harm. A person must grow, morally, to become more like God. To have morality without goals is irrational.
Take out the reference to God and materialists have no basis for objection. And I should not have to point out the ample evidence that theists are not morally superior to anyone or anything.
When we seek what God wants, he will show us.
From personal experience I know this to be false. “Sometimes” maybe, but certainly not always. Certainly not for me.
First – it hasn’t happened yet. With patience, you can indeed discover that God will guide you.
You presume much about me. Patience I have exercised. Maybe some deity will show up eventually, but until then, I still need to know how to live; as do the many others like me. That’s why we need to find moral guidance in nature. Luckily, that’s easy enough and more than sufficient morally. Any time God wants to join the conversation, He’s quite welcome.
But even still, it’s good to be open to what other people have to say about God. You’re right – it does take trust.
Trust whom? If I cannot trust humans to just reason from nature to what is right, then I cannot just trust humans who claim to have got their rules from God. If some deity shows up, I’ll deal with that then. Until then, I need to live my life.
But why should we trust ourselves alone? Do we know everything there is about God? We trust experts in other fields where we can’t evaluate results, even in science.
What makes a person an “expert” about God? Certainly not God without verified evidence of God’s saying-so. In science, the evidence and reasoning behind claims are available to all to see and examine. Even if I don’t have the expertise to evaluate the claims, I can watch the consensus build or erode, and base my conclusions on that. In religion, when I see inexplicable claims about God, my questions are thrown back at me. “God is mysterious”, “God is transcendental”, etc. I am told to trust the prophet. I have no way of knowing who is an “expert” and who is just a bloviator. Sorry, no. I can trust science, I cannot trust religion until God actually talks to me.
Why not trust people who have been seeking God for a long time, and who show goodness in their spiritual life? These can be people alive today, or saints of the past.
Why not? First, because you assume I can figure out what goodness is BEFORE having a spiritual awakening. If I can do that, I don’t need these “saints”! Second, because these “saints” have not arrived at anything remotely like a consensus about God it would be irrational to trust them. Religious disputes are endemic and pervasive. Even on this exact topic (same-sex marriage) they dispute. Their collective testimony amounts to nothing. StephenB @242
Ontologically, there is only one possible source for the Natural Moral Law and that would be the Lawgiver, which is God. That is what I understand harry to be saying. I have made the same point on this thread.
Rationally and logically, no lawgiver is needed for a moral system. The imperatives of nature suffice. If your “natural moral law” needs a god to account for it, then it’s religion. I know you keep saying your “natural moral law” is not religion, but then you keep reasserting God’s necessary involvement.
Would you say that the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy are “emphatically religious” simply because they require a law-giver to exist?
Since neither gravity nor the conservation of energy require a lawgiver, the question is meaningless.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for your answer: If the fourteenth makes it constitutional to change the meaning of marriage as one man/one woman on the grounds that all persons have that right, why would it not also apply to fathers and daughters or, for that matter, fathers and sons?
Answered more than once. Silver Asiatic @244
The topic was adultery. You don’t like it, then don’t do it. The state, on that basis, should be as tolerant of adultery as gay marriage.
The State is tolerant of adultery. There’s no criminal penalty. However, the difference between same-sex marriage and adultery is that the former causes no actual harm, the later does. Silver Asiatic @246
Should the state make it illegal for one spouse to tell any sort of lie to the other?
Without a legitimate purpose, no.
“The state is largely tolerant of adultery.” Therefore adultery is not an integral component of the marriage contract.
Interesting. The easy lack of fidelity in same-sex marriage was one of the common arguments against it.
It’s the same harm as caused by pornography. It’s morally offensive to those who oppose it and believed by them to be harmful to society.
This is not a harm. Racists oppose racial equality and believe it harmful to society. Same-o-same-o.
There is a trust that the state will uphold moral norms. When the state approved gay marriage, it was a betrayal of trust.
Unless the State explicitly and expressly made this promise, this betrayal is imaginary. The State DID EXPLICITLY AND EXPRESSLY promise to protect Religious Liberty and Equality before the Law for ALL PERSONS. harry @252
Would any of you agree that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being who is in no way a threat to others?
Yes. harry @262
Imperet tibi Dominus.
I wish He would, because then He’d finally reveal himself to me. So far all I have is silence... harry @271
Zachriel
Of course it’s wrong.
Is it always wrong because it is objectively wrong?
There is no substantial difference between objective wrongs and subjective wrong; they only differ according to our confidence in our conclusion; a confidence that is never 100%. It’s always wrong because there’s no circumstance that makes it not wrong. sean s.sean samis
July 19, 2015
July
07
Jul
19
19
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Z
Merely sharing a preference for humans is enough to establish some common ground.
Yes, the Nazi's preferred Jews for a certain reason, and Jewish families preferred them for a different reason. That's apparently enough for common ground. Feel free to have the last word on gay marriage here.Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Since your reasons for preference were unspecified then claiming common ground would not be correct. Merely sharing a preference for humans is enough to establish some common ground. Unless you mean "To Serve Man". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIufLRpJYnIZachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Z
Silver Asiatic: I prefer humans to ladybugs for other reasons.
Since your reasons for preference were unspecified then claiming common ground would not be correct.Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: I said “I prefer coccinellidae”. You also said @265, Silver Asiatic: I prefer humans to ladybugs for other reasons.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Z
Silver Asiatic: I already explained that I prefer ladybugs
I understand, some or all of you were confused - I said "I prefer coccinellidae".Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Some prefer oysters. Some prefer snails. Not sure why the term is such a challenge for you. Silver Asiatic: I’m glad you feel comfortable describing reality with non-scientific, non-measurable and teleological concepts. Actually, it was a descriptive statement. It is almost certainly an objective fact that some people prefer oysters, and some people prefer snails. Silver Asiatic: Therefore, morality is not measurable scientifically There is no scientifically measurable morality, however, we can objectively observe behavior, including behavior attributed to moral sensibilities. Silver Asiatic: I already explained that I prefer ladybugs. You had said, "I prefer humans to ladybugs" for non-specified reasons. Perhaps you changed your mind.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Z
Some prefer oysters. Some prefer snails. Not sure why the term is such a challenge for you.
I'm glad you feel comfortable describing reality with non-scientific, non-measurable and teleological concepts.
It’s certainly not scientific.
But you used it as an explanation and measure for moral behavior. Therefore, morality is not measurable scientifically - so, is not reducible to the physical. Thanks for some good support for the existence of immaterial qualities like the moral sense in humans.
While we do enjoy a ladybug now and again, we share your preference for humans. Common ground
Sorry, no. I already explained that I prefer ladybugs.Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Zachriel
Of course it’s wrong.
Is it always wrong because it is objectively wrong?harry
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
harry: So, none of the objective truths that you agree are accessible to any open, rational mind lead you to conclude that some actions are objectively wrong. You can only determine right and wrong from a value system. The value you place on people or things is subjective. harry: You can’t even bring yourselves to explicitly agree to the assertion that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being who is in no way a threat to others. Of course it's wrong. That's because we place a high value on humans. asauber: My preference is that you stick to science, if you can. You interjected after harry asked a personal question.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
"If it offends you that we have a fondness for the humans" It doesn't. My preference is that you stick to science, if you can. Throwing out poetry and not answering questions isn't very helpful. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
asauber: “Offense or sin against what, Zachriel?” It was a figure of speech. If it offends you that we have a fondness for the humans, then we ask your pardon. What of you? Do you have a fondness for humans?Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
"Or foible, if you prefer." I prefer that you answer another simple question, which you are having difficulty doing, for some reason. "Offense or sin against what, Zachriel?" 1. ______________ Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
asauber: a small, relatively unimportant offense or sin. Or foible, if you prefer. Silver Asiatic: Preference is a nebulous term. Some prefer oysters. Some prefer snails. Not sure why the term is such a challenge for you. Silver Asiatic: It’s also teleological and non-scientific. It's certainly not scientific. Silver Asiatic: I prefer humans to ladybugs for other reasons. While we do enjoy a ladybug now and again, we share your preference for humans. Common ground!Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Z
We didn’t ask for an explanation, just your preference.
Preference is a nebulous term. It's also teleological and non-scientific. Preference is relative to purpose. A rational person prefers something 'over' another for a reason. I prefer coccinellidae to rid my garden of aphids. I prefer humans to ladybugs for other reasons. I hope that was a help to you.Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
"We already suggested one, a peccadillo." pec·ca·dil·lo /?pek??dil?/ noun: peccadillo; plural noun: peccadilloes; plural noun: peccadillos a small, relatively unimportant offense or sin. Offense or sin against what, Zachriel? You are making less sense as you go. Andrewasauber
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
asauber: Are you suggesting there is some other kind of reason to prefer humans over beetles? We already suggested one, a peccadillo. Zachriel: Do you prefer humans over beetles? asauber: What is it that you would like me to explain to you? We didn't ask for an explanation, just your preference.Zachriel
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
harry: Do you believe there are, accessible to any open, rational mind, objective truths that remain true whether we decide to accept them or reject them? Zachriel: Sure ... harry: Do you believe there is a universally applicable ethical system that consists, at a minimum, of the principle of non-malevolence towards others, the meaning of “malevolence” being understood by everyone to be “that which I wouldn’t want done to me.”? Zachriel: No. … harry: Would any of you agree that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being who is in no way a threat to others? Zachriel: As we’ve said before, we’re rather fond of the hominid creatures. Call it a peccadillo if you like.
So, none of the objective truths that you agree are accessible to any open, rational mind lead you to conclude that some actions are objectively wrong. You can't even bring yourselves to explicitly agree to the assertion that it is always wrong to take the life of an innocent human being who is in no way a threat to others. Imperet tibi Dominus.harry
July 14, 2015
July
07
Jul
14
14
2015
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply