---------------
RedFerret said...
Wow, thats just vindictive. You guys see any chance that your Supreme Court(s) will overturn this nonsense anytime soon, on the basis of equality/discrimination?
TRF
said...
I believe there are suits being brought for just that purpose but I don't know how far they have gotten yet. The way the Supreme Court is balanced right now, with some people on the bench not even understanding what the basic principles of this country are, it's possible that even if a case does get taken all the way up to the Supreme Court and they agree to hear it they will rule the wrong way in the end. It should be part of all elementary school textbooks, in big bold print right on the first page, "This is not a Christian nation." That would help a lot with this kind of crap.
said...
I would just like to add, I just read the article and I officially despise Kenneth Starr now. First he leads a witch hunt against Clinton for something that shouldn't have been anyone's business, and now he is working for the bigots behind Prop H8. He is now added to my worst peoples list.
said...
Silly question...do they have standing to bring the suit?
I thought part of having standing for a suit was that you had to have a demonstrated harm against you.
Can they show a secular manifest harm that they are feeling because of these being on the books?
said...
What a load of idiocy you've crapped on us today.
Just what would indicate that Christians would "favor" drug use from the mother of the boyfriend who illegitimately got the daughter of a Christian pregnant?
said...
What a sickening cesspool of hate and fear Christianity has become.
Darth Rhology: There you go again with your moralizing, Martin. You cannot say why, on atheism, that hate and fear are bad.
Look, I know there are many decent and tolerant Christians out there
Darth Rhology: What makes decency and tolerance "good"? See my comments here.
What if I don't think tolerance is good? Provide objective evidence for this, if you can. And real Christians aren't tolerant. We're just diagnosing the disease and offering the cure. If a doctor tells you that you have high cholesterol and that you need to change your diet and exercise habits, is he being intolerant? Accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior is like getting a prescription for Lipitor, only you don't have to go to the pharmacist to get it.
You can't get morals from an immoral religion.
Darth Rhology: I agree. You can only get morals from the Bible and accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
If you're progressive, tolerant, humane, decent, and Christian, well, one of those things is a fifth wheel. Pop it off. You don't need it.
Darth Rhology: Again, I agree. Tolerance is a fifth wheel. Pop it off and stick it in the trunk of your car.
After all, it's that fifth wheel that allows these confused people to set up websites called ProtectMarriage.com whose stated agenda is to destroy marriages by the thousands.
Darth Rhology: A real marriage is between a man and a woman. You can't destroy marriages between two men or two women, because they were never legitimately married to begin with. You can put lipstick on a pig, but that doesn't make it a beauty queen (no offense meant to Sarah Palin!)
Honestly, why is it that conservative Christians can't be happy unless they're making gays and lesbians unhappy at every opportunity?
Darth Rhology: Provide objective evidence why being happy is better than being unhappy or that making others unhappy is wrong. What if I'm happy being unhappy?
That's mean.
Darth Rhology: But you have no basis, on atheism, for determining whether something is mean and why being mean is bad.
Mean people suck.
Darth Rhology: Why do they suck? On atheism!
But then, so does Christianity.
Darth Rhology: You won't feel that way once you embrace reason and accept Him.
Peace, hugs and kisses,
Darth Rhology
said...
Darnit Rhology! Couldn't you have held off just for a few more minutes?
said...
Tommy, you forgot to capitalize Lord and Savior, and any instances of He or other pronouns or possessive markers that you have referring to God.
said...
Thanks for the constructive criticism Sparrowhawk.
I did remember to capitalize "Him" though!
said...
I just came over here after
'apologizing' for 'calling' you insufferable and arrogant over in the other thread Tommy.
I thought you had a good sense of humor before this. I think it's freaking awesome now.
said...
Thanks -C. When I clicked on your blog and saw that you were in Malaysia, I thought my Malaysia Sucks series (not the country, but the Muslim whackos you have to share that beautiful country with) might have offended you.
said...
In my country they ban homo-festivas, marches, any public events; now they are thinking of putting a ban on homo "propaganda" (which I'm assuming is going to be everything which is positive & related to homosexual activity or acceptance) since it damages children.
Article: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=31125
"Tolerant Youth Association (TJA) believes the law will ban homosexual websites, films such as Brokeback Mountain, discos, exhibitions, demonstrations and other public events."
Hoo-fucking-ray!
said...
I don't think it's fair to link the palin daughter boyfriend mother to the palins. However, gays committing to each other in marriage does not harm marriage. People of religious faith proclaiming about marriage, then sucking at it anyway, harm their marriages. And why does this institution of marriage need protection? What wonderful thing does it do that gay marriages hurt? What is marriage busily accomplishing for all of us that begins to disintegrate when gays pledge lifelong love and support to one another?
I have to conclude that yes, the anti-gay-marriage crowd are mean, or just evil in the banal bystander way.
said...
Just what would indicate that Christians would "favor" drug use from the mother of the boyfriend who illegitimately got the daughter of a Christian pregnant?
It's called "snark," Rhology. Still, if that's the only part of the post you think I got wrong...
said...
Martin,
No, just the easiest. One gets tired of correcting you every single time you post.
Tommy,
That's cute. Since atheists are self-professed seekers and possessors of the truth, I'm sure you won't mind if I correct you where you got me wrong.
One thing I'll note - you mock here, and that's fine, but what would be really crazy is if someone would actually answer my arguments. I know, bizarre, insane thing to ask, but hope springs eternal.
See my comments here.
This isn't wrong, per se, but I think it's funny how people ask me to back up my statements, then mock me when I link to the backup. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
And real Christians aren't tolerant
This is horsecrap.
Accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior is like getting a prescription for Lipitor, only you don't have to go to the pharmacist to get it.
So is this.
1) the Bible doesn't say that we need to "accept Jesus Christ", for one thing, so I don't say that. If you're going to satirise me, satirise ME, not Rick Warren. We need to repent of our sin and put our trust in Christ, so that HE accepts US.
2) The human problem is far worse than requiring a "prescription". You just made this up.
You can only get morals from the Bible and accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
??? I hope your glutes aren't chafed from pulling things out of your butt.
1) The only way to objectively ground morality is to base it on the God of the Bible, whether you "accept Jesus Christ" or not.
2) Everyone has morals, as I've said over and over again. The question is - are your morals simply subjective and arbitrary? Do they have any meaning or applicability beyond yourself?
So, hope that helps. It's nice to feel so loved, especially around Christmas. ;-)
Peace,
Rhology
said...
How can so many of its adherents live with themselves, when they actively take steps to bully, victimize, and bring misery to the lives of a group of people for the sole crime of being different?
That's easy, they simply begin to obsessively making up 'facts' and make specious attempts at argumentation that make little, if any, sense when actual reason is applied to them:
Examples of 'Christian' reasons are:
(Thanks goes to Rhology's blog – excerpts paraphrased here for brevity).
1) homosexuals have substantially shorter life spans than heterosexuals and therefore their lifestyle is destructive and needs to be discouraged
2) The civil rights movement was primarily a struggle for equal rights for people of color, thus civil rights cannot be applied to homosexuals because they are defined by a behavior and behaviors can be changed.
3) A request to expand existing laws to include same-sex marriage is a “super-right” that heterosexuals won't have.
4) The legalizing of same-sex marriage necessitates a slippery slope that could only end with people legally marrying animals, or plants, or three-year olds, or dead people.
5) Marriage is a mirror of Christ's marriage to the Church. Thus because 'Christ marrying Christ', or 'Church marrying Church' doesn't make much sense, neither does same-sex marriage.
6) ...oh, and my personal favorite, simply because homosexuality is a disgusting behavior....why this was worth mentioning, I am not sure but the simple statement was quite telling in itself.
I rest my case.
said...
How can so many of its adherents live with themselves, when they actively take steps to bully, victimize, and bring misery to the lives of a group of people for the sole crime of being different?
That's easy, they simply begin to obsessively making up 'facts' and make specious attempts at argumentation that make little, if any, sense when actual reason is applied to them
Well, it was a rhetorical question, DagoRed, but thanks. :-)
said...
Well, it was a rhetorical question, DagoRed, but thanks. :-)
Yes, I know...but it was such a nice segue for me to get in to the Rhology bashing session, don't you think? I couldn't resist. I also felt a bit 'polluted' the other day when I read bits of his site a couple days ago, I had to come up with some sort of purging ceremony for myself in a safe place....the power of sharing and all that, you know, it can be quite therapeutic!
said...
If anyone is interested in my main arguments against same sex marriage, feel free to jump over to my blog. All 3 of the relevant posts were in Oct 08 - Super rights, Super duper rights, and the homosexual automaton.
DagoRed kind of listed them, but not especially well or with any sophistication. He's not living up to the conduct he keeps calling me to.
said...
That's cute. Since atheists are self-professed seekers and possessors of the truth, I'm sure you won't mind if I correct you where you got me wrong.
Lighten up dude. It was meant in good fun. Have a sense of humor for goodness sakes! A parody is not meant to be a perfect imitation. However, I do appreciate the constructive criticism. I will try to do better next time! :-)
but what would be really crazy is if someone would actually answer my arguments.
What argument in this post do you want me to address? Just prior to posting my satire of you, your sole contribution to this thread, addressed to Martin, was:
What a load of idiocy you've crapped on us today.
Just what would indicate that Christians would "favor" drug use from the mother of the boyfriend who illegitimately got the daughter of a Christian pregnant?
What is there for me to argue against in that? Why do you and I have to argue about anything at all? You have embraced a prepackaged belief system whose adherents claim represents the inerrant truth of a universal creator. After believing it myself for a while, I came to the conclusion that it is a bunch of hogwash. But if it gets you through the day without going on a crystal meth binge, holding up your local 7/11, or raping a 13 year old girl, then far be it for me to complain.
Hugs and kisses,
TK
said...
Rhology puked out:
"Everyone has morals, as I've said over and over again. The question is - are your morals simply subjective and arbitrary? Do they have any meaning or applicability beyond yourself?"
As I told you on some other blog, everyone's morality is subjective, including yours. What is moral or immoral to you depends on a series of choices you make.
I'm assuming by your aggresivity that you're a Protestant. So you must be using a bible that translates the 5th commandment as Thou shalt not murder. But if you change your choice of bibles and you pick up the Catholic's bible, then the commandment becomes Thou shalt not kill. That choice changes your morality: Thou shalt not murder = death penalty is not immoral; Thou shalt not kill = death penalty is immoral.
(As if it wasn't enough, I've heard a Christian say in some debate that death penalty had nothing to do with morality. Another way to look at it. Another choice.)
said...
I often hear christians wondering where an atheists morality springs from, without some god explaining the difference between right and wrong (and yes, god is not capitalized on purpose.)
It's really very simply: compassion, which precludes the need for an invisible mentor. Empathy, which does the same. You will not find these things in the Bible, which, if you read that foolish book, is hardly a bastion for morality. Unless you think stoning children to death, slavery, and women not being allowed to speak are all great ideas.
said...
Wow. Some of the generalities on here are borderline absurd.
In every election, there has to be a winner and a loser. Prop 8 advocates, YOU LOST. Could you imagine the scenario if everyone who voted for McCain pulled the same crap you are? Filing suits and suing groups, having rallies in every city until...what? He lost. Has it ever occured to you that maybe people are just against gay marriage on principle and not homophobia? It is you who are doing the bullying by trying to overturn how the people have spoken.
jimbobyhedevil, when Jesus said 'let he among you without sin cast the first stone' (and it was an adulterer not a child) was that what you were referring to?
And I love how everyone chooses "Christian" to degrade and belittle and attack, they are such an easy target. Have some balls and call out Jewish beliefs, Muslum beliefs, Mohammad.
Get your facts straight before you go on like you're a scholar. The Muslum's slaughtered the Christains and the Templar Knights through the 13-15th centuries.
said...
'Has it ever occured to you that maybe people are just against gay marriage on principle and not homophobia?'
By DEFINITION, being against gay marriage on principle IS homophobia.
'And I love how everyone chooses "Christian" to degrade and belittle and attack, they are such an easy target. Have some balls and call out Jewish beliefs, Muslum beliefs, Mohammad.'
The Christians are the majority in the US of A. Were this show and subsequently this blog in Palestine or India we would see more focus on Islam and Hinduism.
'Get your facts straight before you go on like you're a scholar. The Muslum's slaughtered the Christains and the Templar Knights through the 13-15th centuries.'
Because the Christians were on a crusade to reclaim the holy lands from the Muslims, by means of conquer.
said...
Missed one.
'Prop 8 advocates, YOU LOST. Could you imagine the scenario if everyone who voted for McCain pulled the same crap you are? Filing suits and suing groups, having rallies in every city until...what?'
In Utah 52% of people vote that marriages between black people and white people are not legal. This would have happened in the 60s and 70s.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you color it. Prop 8 should never have been put on the ballot, much less to popular vote.
Side note: Someone made an interesting point. Bill O'Reilly's evidence for 'This is a Christian nation' is that the majority of the population are Christians. Can you imagine him saying 'This is a white nation' and not getting stoned to death for it?
I quote the irreplaceable Douglas Adams.
Really what [religion] means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.
said...
It's not hate but Love
said...
Why does it always seem that when ever people make a big stink about controlling gay issues that eventually it comes out that they were gay themselves. It is a pretty simple formula. When somebody gets all bent out of shape over something and makes a lot of noise it falls back on those truthful four words, "Doth protest to much."
said...
Rhodology said: DagoRed kind of listed them, but not especially well or with any sophistication. He's not living up to the conduct he keeps calling me to.
True and True and True. My apologize to you, Rhodology, for taking a rather cheap shot -- but I was merely using your canards to stir some discussion. I am most curious to hear you explain how same-sex marriage laws exclude you, as a heterosexual, from practicing same-sex marriage? I mean I'm currently single, so dump your wife and I'll meet you in Massachusetts next week and we can both get hitched? There is no legal barriers there. What exactly do you find so exclusive about this particular expansion of the marriage law?
said...
Mike228 wrote: In every election, there has to be a winner and a loser. Prop 8 advocates, YOU LOST.
Prop 8 advocates actually won. It was one of those confusing cases where if you were against gay marriage you were actually for prop 8...an easy mistake to make, especially when you are in the middle of ranting.
said...
Mike228,
Ah, the usual fatwa envy. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Dude, if you think we haven't called out Islam for its bullshit, you're obviously new here. Go back and read. I've been extremely brutal to Muslims for their religiously motivated atrocities. This blog is full of healthy Islam-bashing.
And I'd like to hear what "principle," other than homophobia, you think could justify opposition to gay marriage. From where I'm sitting, it's a bunch of arrogant religious prats telling a group of people they don't like that they can't be allowed to share their lives in a legally bonded relationship with the people they love, and the only reason for this is said religious prats' distaste for the fact that the people gays love happen to be of the same gender.
Just because the majority of the population votes to support a thing that is a great moral wrong, and does so based on religiously motivated hate, doesn't magically transform it into a moral right. I'll see -C's point on interracial marriage and raise him virtually every other social injustice the civil rights movement sought to erase.
And anyway, you can't compare the loss of a specific political candidate for office with a vote whose goal was to enshrine bigotry into a state's constitution.
Filing suits, holding rallies, till what? Till things change, that's what. Until religious hate and prejudice in this society becomes marginalized, shameful, fringe behavior, rather than mainstream. Rather like racism before the 1960's.
said...
Martin,
You are so incredibly right on target with your views regarding California's proposition 8 you make me wonder if you are secretly an honorary Californian. Few non-Californians even seem to realize that the recent bout over same-sex marriage was not merely another attempt at legalization, let alone understanding the nuance of it also being a state constitutional amendment.
I cannot recall another retrograde civil rights law ever passed before (say, in the past forty years or so at any rate) that actually actively took away rights once enjoyed from a minority community before. I was wondering if you knew of any other similar laws? Surely 'progressive' California did not just out-shine the great state of Texas, and the entire South, in becoming the star side show attraction at the Stupidest Show on Earth -- did we?
said...
DagoRed: I believe that californians should not be painted by a wide brush just cause they live in the same geographic location. The bigots in California did it, not Californians.
said...
What a sickening cesspool of hate and fear Christianity has become. How can so many of its adherents live with themselves, when they actively take steps to bully, victimize, and bring misery to the lives of a group of people for the sole crime of being different?
And how is this different, really, from its general behavior over most of the past 2000 years?
Look, I know there are many decent and tolerant Christians out there who were (and are) opposed to Prop H8, and supportive of gay rights and marriage equality. I'd suggest that if those people are intelligent enough to support those things, then they're intelligent enough to know that all of Christianity's superstitions about God and Satan and Heaven and Hell and choirs of angels and talking donkeys are bullshit, too.
Then they'd hardly be "Christians" though, would they?
said...
Mike228,
Criticism of Islam, Judaism, etc is implicit in criticism of Christianity because they all have the same problem: believing that some writings cooked up by human beings are actually the revealed word of the psychopathic space monster they call "God."
said...
Arous: You're preaching to the choir pal =P
said...
DagoRed,
I don't want to explode the combox with a really long block of text.
As I said, if anyone is interested in my main arguments against same sex marriage, feel free to jump over to my blog. All 3 of the relevant posts were in Oct 08 - Super rights, Super duper rights, and the homosexual automaton.
Robert Morane,
The fact that people interpret an objective anything subjectively does not make the thing interpreted objective in itself. You have not even attempted to interact with the last time I answered this challenge from you. You just keep repeating yourself. If a Christian came up to you and said, "Please repent of your sin", and you said "Sin is all in your mind" and the Christian just repeated "Please repent of your sin", how seriously would you take that? Thus, how seriously should anyone take you here?
The 5th Cmdmt is do not murder. It's a difference of TRANSLATION and text comparison, not interpretation at all. At least show a basic familiarity with the elements of the scenario, seriously. You come across as a 15-yr old new convert to atheism.
jimbobthedevil,
I wrote this post recently to refute the exact same idea you propose here, b/c Martin himself is a proponent of it. I can't get him to interact with the arguments there - one can only guess as to why. Perhaps you'd like to give it a shot?
said...
-C said: I believe that Californians should not be painted by a wide brush just cause they live in the same geographic location. The bigots in California did it, not Californians.
But this was an amendment to the state constitution. Is it not the constitution, along with our geographical boundaries, that actually defines what it means to be 'Californian'?
said...
Rhology wrote: As I said, if anyone is interested in my main arguments against same sex marriage, feel free to jump over to my blog...
Thanks, I did, but I am looking to engage you in a direct conversation, not merely review your words directed to someone else. But, if you are reluctant to air your views on this topic here, I shall respect your privacy.
said...
Rhology
Erm, Robert Morane says
I'm assuming by your aggresivity that you're a Protestant. So you must be using a bible that TRANSLATES the 5th commandment as Thou shalt not murder. But if you change your choice of bibles and you pick up the Catholic's bible, then the commandment becomes Thou shalt not kill. That choice changes your morality: Thou shalt not murder = death penalty is not immoral; Thou shalt not kill = death penalty is immoral.
So it appears he agree's that it is a translation difference. The Choice of which to believe is of course yours.
Besides, whether it is a difference in translation or interpretation, your Christian commandment no.5 differs from the Catholic no.5 as Robert Morane indicates, the reason for the difference is irrelevant.
TRF
said...
Rhodology wrote: It's a difference of TRANSLATION and text comparison, not interpretation at all.
redferret wrote: whether it is a difference in translation or interpretation...the reason for the difference is irrelevant.
My thought exactly, Redferret. In fact I was wondering, Rhodology, how does one do 'TRANSLATION' without 'interpretation at all'?
As one who has done some translation in his life, the former is not usually separable from the latter. Also, since there is no original texts (i.e. the stone tablets given to us by God through Moses. I do believe the oldest copy we have of this document is from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Hebrew, which dates back to somewhere between 150BCE to 70CE) are not all of the available texts we work from translations or copies and, thus, potentially suffering from some kind of interpretation errors or changes when they were taken from other long lost sources? How do we decide which of our existing copies, then, truly reflect the exact meaning God meant?
said...
You're seriously pursuing this pedantic point about the 5th Cmdmt? DagoRed, seriously, you can do better than to follow Robert Morane around, given what I've seen so far in this combox.
So, you're arguing that Moses was a pacifist? That he came down the mountain and said, "Wait, no killing? At ALL?!?!?" And that he was only too happy a little later on to kill people in the Israelite camp?
Besides, the 5th Cmdmt is quoted in the NT and translated in the LXX; each time it's "don't murder".
Anyway, DagoRed, upon your request I'll try to summarise the arguments I made in fuller form in the blogposts to which I referred.
1) Homosexual behavior is just that - BEHAVIOR. Why should we change a societal institution to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?
2) Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.
3) Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me. I do not see why, based on a simple behavioral preference, the law should be changed in this way, especially one related to something so fundamental to society as the family unit. Perhaps I should pursue a change in law that would rewards me for carrying out my from-birth predilection to be a drunk. And maybe I like to drive. So maybe I can get the drunk-driving law annulled by my efforts towards "equality".
You might say:
-But drunk driving a) is dangerous and b) hurts people and c) it's foolish to change the law just based on your desire to carry out your own weird tendencies!
A few responses:
a) Indeed, but who are you to judge my chosen lifestyle! Seriously, who are you?
b) Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.
c) Quite so. So let's just leave it the way it is, capiche?
4) Since we're changing the definition of marriage, why not remove the 'by mutual consent' part of it too? Just b/c YOU say so? What reasonable answer will we have for someone who sues to get married in a few years to someone who doesn't consent, or to sthg that can't give consent, and they accuse you of consent-centrism if you refuse?
Here is the now definition of marriage:
One male adult, one female adult, by mutual consent.
You want to change one part of that, the male/female part.
For what reason could you say that the other parts are off-limits for --ahem-- extension?
5) Marriage is not simply a private ceremony or agreement. There are witnesses, a judge, neighbors, children, in-laws. It's the foundation of society, for childbearing and child-rearing, of societal stability. Has been for millennia. When there's no good reason to tinker with it, why tinker with it? Just b/c people want to be legally recognised as different and flaunt their differences, the way they were able to bend the gov't to their will?
As I'm sure you'd agree, it is not laudable that the Atheist Haters and Eaters Society of America would probably like to bend the gov't to their will so that it be legal to hate and eat atheists.
6) Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?
7) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry:
-a grapefruit
-a dead person
-a 3-yr old
-a parakeet
-a tree
If you answer "But, but, consent!!!" see #4.
8) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry 4 people at once. All consenting adults. Maybe we should change the law for that, too, huh? What would be your argument for why, since we changed it to give YOU a super-right, why we shouldn't change it for anyone else?
9) Since we're all good naturalists here, I'd really like to know on what basis we ascribe rights to any human at all. Sure, you can assume them, or say you prefer to live in a society that ascribes everyone the same rights, but that's called wishful thinking.
10) I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage beyond what amounts to "but homosexuals are such nice people! They deserve to be able to get married!" That is also called wishful thinking. I thought you were all beyond that here.
Peace,
Rhology
said...
Rhology,
Man do you ever sound hateful. I know there are a few people here who would like to respond, and requested your response first, so I would like to give them that opportunity. But I still have to say a couple things.
In response to your #1.
You are reducing homosexuality to behavior, thereby ignoring anything that may have caused that behavior. I assume you feel this is legitimate because you feel homosexuality is simply a choice, as opposed to something else in the brain? Personally, I have neither seen evidence supporting it is simply a choice, nor any evidence pointing to some specific locale of the brain that explains or dictates sexual attraction. But I know I have my own attractions, and these feel as unconscious/uncontrollable as I can imagine.
Now, why change a societal institution to accommodate the behavior of people? Why not? The societal institution was created in the first place to accommodate peoples behavior. But I see that isn't really your point, that behavior should not dictate changes in societal institution. Rather, your point is that a societal institution should not be changed based on the behavior of a minority, a minority that you personally find distasteful.
Your #2.
I cannot disagree with this generalized statement, though I know you will use it to imply homosexuality is objectively immoral, and therefore being born gay is not an excuse. This is interesting, because it opens the door that you may believe people are born gay. Not quite certain if that is your belief or not, but interesting none the less. Obviously I can’t change your mind about objective morality? I can invite you to search for a greater truth, beyond that self centralized view, but you really have to want to learn it, and learning isn’t always easy.
I will keep watching here, and respond further, but for now that is it.
said...
Rhology,
To your #3.
Really, the same rights? You mean they have the same rights to marry the person they are physically and emotionally attracted to...well, no they don’t. You said that to demand change would be granting a super-right, which would not be granted to you. On the contrary, such a right would apply to you as it would to any citizen.
Now your argument moves on to the accusation that homosexual behavior is universally dangerous and unhealthy. Citing life expectancy to begin, what exactly do you mean when you say a homosexuals life span is “vastly shorter”. Exactly how much is vastly shorter? From what do you cite this?
Assuming the numbers about the homosexual life span are true, and I don’t believe they are, as I have a older family members who I have heard are. What about African Americans, their numbers in prison certainly don’t match racial populations outside the prison system. Using the same logic, I could claim that their lifestyle was inherently dangerous. Yet, obviously you wouldn’t argue against the right of African Americans to raise children, or marry.
said...
hi Ai,
Welcome to the discussion!
Please don't get me wrong, I am not hateful at all. I don't hate anyone. I do hate the lifestyle and I hate sin, but that's totally different.
On the other hand, if you're a naturalist, please explain why being hateful is bad. I'm unaware of any objective way to ground moral value judgments if naturalism is true, so that would be inconsistent with your worldview.
thereby ignoring anything that may have caused that behavior.
Go back to my alcoholism example and reread, please.
you feel homosexuality is simply a choice
If you reread what I said, I never said anythg like that. I said homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice.
The societal institution was created in the first place to accommodate peoples behavior.
Yes, it was CREATED for that reason. Now hows about an argument for why we should CHANGE it?
it opens the door that you may believe people are born gay.
I doubt that that is the only factor in being a homosexual, but it is also immaterial to my arguments.
I can’t change your mind about objective morality? I can invite you to search for a greater truth, beyond that self centralized view
Feel free. On what would said objective morality be based, if naturalism is true? (Or maybe you're not a naturalist. I'm open to your explanations. I keep asking people around here for them, and virtually all I ever get is bluster and insults. An actual explanation would be a breath of fresh air. Just don't say "empathy" - see my second-to-last comment.)
You mean they have the same rights to marry the person they are physically and emotionally attracted to
That is not a right at all. I explained precisely what I meant. I suggest you deal with my actual argument.
And you DON'T have the right to marry someone you're physically nad emotionally attracted to. If that person is married to someone else already, you can't marry them. They have to divorce 1st, and that usually entails consequences.
what exactly do you mean when you say a homosexuals life span is “vastly shorter”.
On avg, homosexuals' lifespans in the US are vastly shorter than heteros.
From what do you cite this?
I actually forget... it's a study of the obits of gay newspapers over some significant amt of time.
What about African Americans, their numbers in prison certainly don’t match racial populations outside the prison system.
No one is arguing that they shouldn't be able to get married. And being African-American is a state of BEING, not of BEHAVIOR.
said...
Besides, the 5th Cmdmt is quoted in the NT and translated in the LXX; each time it's "don't murder".
On this point, I have to side with Rhology. Given the context of the commandment, it seems obvious that it applies to not murdering people, and does not apply to vombat on the battlefield or matters of criminal justice. That is, if the state executes a serial killer, you can't turn around and say "But you can't execute him, that's murder!" If someone has a prediliction for killing people, execution is surely a public safety measure.
said...
Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.
Yes, it is, if that particular homosexual engages in risky behavior such as unprotected sex with multiple partners. The use of condoms within a monogamous relationship vastly reduces that risk. What you're doing is lumping every homosexual into extreme risk end of the spectrum of behavior.
The average day for most gay couples is no different than the average hetero couple, getting up in the morning, eating breakfast and taking a shower, going to work, coming home, eating dinner, watching some tv or writing checks to pay the bill and all the rest of the humdrum routine. It's not like they're poking each other up the ass 24/7!
Marriage is not simply a private ceremony or agreement. There are witnesses, a judge, neighbors, children, in-laws. It's the foundation of society, for childbearing and child-rearing, of societal stability. Has been for millennia.
Are you suggesting that gay couples would not have neighbors and family members at their ceremonies?
You forget that many marriages in the past, and in the not so recent past, were ones in which the woman was treated like property to be exchanged, to seal alliances between kings, tribal leaders, and so forth, or for economic convenience.
My uncle, a widower in his mid-sixties, recently married a woman only a couple of years younger than he. Obviously, no children will be produced from their marriage and, to be honest, there is no real societal benefit to their getting married. Should it be against the law for them to get married?
Since we're changing the definition of marriage, why not remove the 'by mutual consent' part of it too?
That is a silly question. Who says we need to? That would involve overturning civil rights laws and constitutional amendments against slavery to force people to marry those to whom they do not consent to marry. You are really overreaching yourself here.
Since we're all good naturalists here, I'd really like to know on what basis we ascribe rights to any human at all.
Like any other right that people have won in the past. The side that pushes in favor of the right and the side that seeks to restrict it. 100 years ago, giving women the right to vote was radical to many. But suffragist movements and their allies kept pushing for it and they got it. It is the same for gay marriage. Its adherents will continue to push for it and its opponents, including you, will continue to push back. Eventually, gays will win the right to marry, and then decades later, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
As you like to point out, and with which I am in strong agreement, human beings are immensely flawed. There is no smooth process whereby someone declares "X should have this right" and then X gets that right. It is a long, fought out and messy process.
I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage beyond what amounts to "but homosexuals are such nice people! They deserve to be able to get married!" That is also called wishful thinking. I thought you were all beyond that here.
As a happily married hetero, I would ask "why not?" Where is the harm? If a young gold digger can charm a wealthy old man just so that she can inherit his money when he kicks the bucket a few years later, then two people of the same gender who have been in a monogamous relationship should surely have the same right.
said...
Sorry, meant "combat on the battlefield"!
said...
If you don't mind me joining this discussion, I just wanted to mention a couple of things to Rhology. Firstly, they talk about the very study he cites about homosexual lifespans, and how spurious it is, in this week's show. Secondly, if he thinks that homosexuals have shorter lifespans because they engage in anal sex, I wonder how he would respond to the figures of heterosexual couples who also engage in anal sex? Do heterosexuals also, then, have shorter lifespans? Also what of the many homosexual couples who do not engage in that particular act?
I'm sure you will state that you find it to be unnatural and disgusting, but alas, that does not make it fatal. And really, you could say that about anything. Also, any argument you might make about HIV is irrelevant today, when both men and women are equally at risk. So don't give us statistics from twenty years ago.
Anyway, this is my first comment on this blog, although I've been reading for ages. I love both the contributors and the commenters! Great stuff.
said...
Regarding objective moralism, there is none, not for me not for you and not for anyone. I do not believe in universal objective morality. A cow in India may be sacred to touch, but it is not to me. Some communities ban adult establishments from operating within their boundaries, while others do not. Drinking alcohol is prohibited in some cultures, but in others it can be considered the blood of Christ. It may be a sin for some to eat shellfish, but it is not for me. Murder may be illegal, but war is a warrant for its legality. Some may say killing is not murder, but how then does one distinguish between the two? What is moral here is not necessarily moral on the other side of the fence, and vice versa. Therefore, I say right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral are subjective classifications which at their root are grounded and ultimately determined by pleasure and pain.
As for a foundation to my personal subjective morality, it consists of a balance between achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. Some may find this difficult to accept, perhaps feel it leaves room for immoral behavior, an open slate to commit any terrible act imaginable. If you feel this way I ask you, if you knew this to be true, would you go out tomorrow and commit murder? What would you do differently? Would you go out an steal thinking, ‘ha....there is no judgement’? No, because we have emotional connections between each other, and human beings can empathize.
Regarding your alcoholism example, I didn’t discuss it because it is completely ridiculous. Your comparing someone with wanting to marry someone they love with being allowed to drive drunk? I’m sorry, I really didn’t feel it deserved discussion. But since were on the discussion of preventing rights on the basis that by providing them said person could potentially cause harm thru another action at some point in the future, why allow alcoholics to marry? Why allow felons such a right? The argument is wholly speculative and lacking in unbiased evidence supporting it.
Ok, so here is where I need to clarify with you. It seems you believe a person can be born gay, which is not a choice, but a person can pursue those natural feelings, and that is a choice. I can’t disagree with that. As for an argument as to why we should change the societal institution to accommodate these peoples behavior, here is the one that works for me: I see an opportunity to help someone, to make them feel welcome in our society. I absolutely dismiss the claims that it is harmful, in fact marrying people promotes non-promiscuity, an issue you raised earlier for which I was prepared to label you the ‘sex-police’. If someone is born blind and uses a seeing-eye dog, shouldn’t a store that otherwise prohibits animals from entering make the exception. Absolutely they should in my opinion, and so should gay marriage be permitted. If you can help someone, it is in your means, and you’re a good person, then you do it. These are my reasons, and I know they won’t work for you since your convinced ‘homosexual BEHAVIOR’ is an objective sin, but I’m pretty satisfied with them.
I’ll finish here with the studies you vaguely cited, which were recently discussed in the 12/21/08 episode of “The Atheist Experience”. The study was apparently conducted by Paul and Kirk Cameron, whose conclusions claimed that gay males had an average life span of 42 years. Sound about right? Your should go back and take a look at how they collected the data.
P.S. Your claim, that allowing gay marriage will allow for people to marry grapefruits, dead people, 3-year olds, parakeets and trees is in fact a fallacy. The actual name of that fallacy is the “Slippery Slope”. Please forgive me but I had to laugh when I read on your blog the following comment; “Then I simply insist that we extend the coverage of the institution to include grapefruits, trees, 3-yr-olds, and multiple people of different genders at the same time.” It just made me think, “Why are you insisting, do you intend to marry a grapefruit?”
said...
Rho,
Lesbians (who are homosexual, of course) are as long-lived as straight women and as a group have FEWER STIs and related medical problems than either gay men or heterosexual women and men.
They are also, as a group, some of the most socially- and income-stable and least crime- and domestic violence-prone people around.
So, clearly, only Lesbians should marry and raise children.
For the good of society.
said...
Thanks, Rhodology, for responding (although I would hope we did this in smaller, manageable bites). Our differences are not merely difference of opinions. Every single one of your points fails to address the issue of same sex marriage, so I am not quite sure what your purposes ware here accept to vent your frustrations...feel free to clarify anything however that may have suffered from poor communication on one or both of our parts.
1)Why should we change a societal institution to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?
Without a definition of “societal institution” no one knows what you really mean by this. The only institutions that I know who have a definition of marriage are legal and religious.
2) Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.
I agree. And if that behavior is a significant problem for society as a whole our legislation can be called to action. How does this point apply to same sex marriage?
3) Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have
True....
To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me.
Not true. If same-sex marriages were made legal, it would be the polygamy laws that keep you from marrying a man. If you divorce your wife first in a state that allowed same-sex marriage, you would be free to marry any man who would have you, just like any one else. Matching your partner's sexual-orientation is not a requirement of any marriage law.
I do not see why, based on a simple behavioral preference, the law should be changed in this way,
I do not know what you mean by “behavioral preference” -- if you are expressing an opposition to the idea of changing or making laws based how some group behaves – well, then, you will need to strike them all down and fire all the legislators – because it is the job of litigators and laws to help civilization mitigate human behavior. That is what it's all about.
especially one related to something so fundamental to society as the family unit.
The legal changes being proposed by same sex legislation do not change the societal family unit in any way. Same sex couples (as well as any other combination of adults) have been legally allowed to form family units since mankind first made families. The only changes in regards to family, again, will be all legal, not social -- and those legal changes virtually all apply to moments of dissolution of the family unit, which I am sure you know, is very messy process that is best done under the rules to established law.
I'll stop here since the rest of your post is merely a cut and paste diatribe repeat from your website and, as Ai Deng so rightly pointed out, is merely based on the the slippery slope fallacy.
I really think that if you simply reduce your position to merely "same sex marriage is counter to the tenets of my religion" you will be much better off. Much of this stuff you posted sounds so irrational, it does beg one to wonder what it is about the issue that sends you, an otherwise rational person, down such a slide.
said...
I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage beyond what amounts to "but homosexuals are such nice people! They deserve to be able to get married!" That is also called wishful thinking. I thought you were all beyond that here.
and Rhotology -- For the record:
Just because you tend toward the wild extremes when it comes to verbose arguments, doesn't mean we all need to be that way. You are essentially correct. The FOR argument is: They simply deserve the right to get married to one another. It's only wishful thinking if they fail in their struggle to gain that right.
said...
Since we're all good naturalists here, I'd really like to know on what basis we ascribe rights to any human at all. Sure, you can assume them, or say you prefer to live in a society that ascribes everyone the same rights, but that's called wishful thinking.
Again with the wishful thinking comment? Is the answer to this question so deep? It's always those people who think humans need a father figure to tell us all what to do, who find it hard to accept the idea that human self-rule does not automatically end in anarchy.
said...
...and, sorry, Rhology. I can't seem to type your name correctly today....both previous variations were unintentional mistakes.
said...
Rhology said:
1) Homosexual behavior is just that - BEHAVIOR. Why should we change a societal institution to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?
If you find a behavior as a poor reason to accommodate and include people, how about beliefs?
Seriously. One is a genetic disposition, and the other is the flavor of idea for the week, quite possibly decided by the flip of a coin or a scent on the wind.
I say, if gays don't deserve rights for their mere genetic orientation, then all anti-discrimination laws, tax free status, etc that religious beliefs afford people should be axed. Mere beliefs shouldn't get you special privileges.
said...
Actually, I should think that the argument for polygamy is totally unrelated to the argument for same gender marriage.
Even if there were not a gay couple in America that wanted to get married, there would still be people making arguments in favor of polygamous marriages. So, it does not follow that if same sex marriage were legalized, then it would open the floodgates to polygamous marriage.
And if you want to see how well marriage between one man and four women works out, just watch the Gong Li film Raise The Red Lantern.
said...
I wish I had the time to form a more substantive comment, but there's one thing here that I think needs to be addressed (and if someone else has already, I missed it): there is no such thing as a homosexual sex act. There is no sex act that homosexual couples can do which heterosexual couples cannot or do not. Take anal sex, for instance, since apparently Rhology thinks that it's the only thing gay couples do in the bedroom. The various surveys and studies consistently show that heterosexual and gay couples engage in the act in about the same ratios. Surprisingly enough, most homosexual intercourse is oral or manual--acts which heterosexual couples barely even count as sex. So let's ban marriage for everyone who engages in "dangerous" sex that uses body parts for something other than their clearly intended purpose. We'll start with the homos, sure, but then let's get all the hetero sodomizers, and then the salad tossers, and then the fellatists and cunnilinguists, and then anyone who uses a position other than missionary. That's the only way to preserve the safe sanctity of marriage.
said...
Cayora,
Hi there! It's not just anal sex we're talking about here. The homosexual lifestyle is more than just sex.
And if men and women are equally at risk,
1) homosexuals are more at risk than heteros
2) many would claim that lesbians are far less at risk than male homosexuals, so I appreciate that you're taking my side on this.
Ai Deng,
Whether you believe in objective morality means nothing. I'm about facts, not feelings or what you might believe or not believe.
Besides, if you don't believe in objective morality, I assume you make NO moral value judgments that you think SHOULD apply to anyone else.
You don't know the distinction between murder and war? Why do you think you're in a position to talk to anyone about moral and ethical issues?
The alcoholism example is valid b/c it has to do with an "inborn predilection" vs chosen behavior, just like h-ity on your position. And you beg the question to say marriage is a right, and to say SSM is a right. Prove it.
Good things and bad things bring pain. Good things and bad things bring pleasure. Using meth brings pleasure. Is it good? Working out is painful. I guess it's bad by your standards.
Whether anyone has emotional attachments about others, why does that make any connection to the morality of an action?
You said:
I see an opportunity to help someone, to make them feel welcome in our society.
Wait a sec, there is no objective morality, right? So why should I think that making someone feel welcome in society is a good thing? You assume that it is, but w/o argument and inconsistently with your stated worldview.
The actual name of that fallacy is the “Slippery Slope”.
I knew someone would bring that up.
1) Why is it a fallacy?
2) I never used those words. Look closely - I'm asking ON WHAT BASIS we could respond rationally and refuse someone who wants to marry a grapefruit. I'm not assuming that's gonna happen. But if your argument can work for SSM, why can't it work for grapefruit-marriage?
BrainFromArous,
I guess you missed the other 9 points of my argument. Anytime you feel like interacting with anything other than the weakest point in my argument, I'll be waiting.
DagoRed,
My points fail to address SSM? I guess that's up to the reader to decide.
"Legal and religious" factors would make it a societal institution. But of course marriage is more than that.
2) See above, answered to Ai Deng.
3) I say we just change those polygamy laws too. Give me a good reason why not.
And don't beg the question by saying that polygamy laws "mitigate human behavior". I argue that SSM is bad, you argue polygamy is bad. Explain why polygamy is bad on your moral system. And mitigation goes both ways.
So changing the family unit from one man, one woman, and children to one man, one man, and children is not a qualitative or social change? Dream on.
You were the one who wanted me to repeat my arguments here, so I did so and now you're saying "it's just a repeat". Um, that's what you asked for.
As far as "wild extremes", they're argumenta ad absurdum. I suggest you look it up. They're YOUR position, taken to the extreme.
And apology accepted as to my name. No biggie.
Tom Foss said:
there is no such thing as a homosexual sex act
No, no one has been bizarre enough to say this yet.
So, two MEN having anal sex is not a homosexual act? OK. I doubt that the GLTBQ crowd would be too happy to accept this argument. You're not doing them any favors by telling us they are no different from anyone else.
And the rest of your comment is unjustified non sequiturs.
Peace and Merry Christ-mas to all,
Rhology
said...
Merry Christmas to you too, sugar plum!
said...
So, two MEN having anal sex is not a homosexual act?
Two men having anal sex is homosexual anal sex. Anal sex is not a strictly homosexual sex act. Your claim that "homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact" applies to all anal sex, not just homosexual anal sex. Which means it also doesn't apply to all gay couples, since not all gay couples engage in anal sex, and it doesn't apply much to lesbians at all.
Of course, your connection between "lower life expectancy rates among homosexuals" and "homosexual sex is dangerous" is specious at best. Do you have anything to make the causal link? Do you recognize that there are other factors which might influence this--such as the fact that gay teens are four times more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens? That'll skew the numbers an awful lot more than the risk of some kind of contamination from poking the poo-hole.
But let's consider that a legitimate reason to deny people marriage: who else has lower-than-average life expectancy rates? Should we deny marriage rights to police officers, firefighters, and armed servicemen?
Or maybe we should recognize that your asinine "drunk driving" analogy fails because it compares something that is dangerous to others with something that is only (potentially) dangerous to the people involved. If I go driving drunk, I'm putting everyone else on the road at risk. If I go have anal sex, I'm only putting myself and my partner at risk, and as long as we've knowingly accepted those risks, what right do you have to tell us whether or not we can do it?
I think I'm going to ultimately devote a blog post to your inane list, because the bigotry and idiocy involved are so thick. "Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?" Really?
Incidentally, this is just laughable: "Since we're changing the definition of marriage, why not remove the 'by mutual consent' part of it too?" Why would we do that? The "mutual consent" part is a very recent addition to the definition of marriage. It wasn't all that long ago that the only consenting parties in a marriage were the groom and the father of the bride. Heck, in parts of the country, consent still doesn't enter into it. And in other cultures, arranged marriages are still the norm--often denying consent to either of the marrying parties. The idea that marriage is a pact between two consenting adults comes out of crazy liberal contrary-to-religion things like the women's rights movement.
If we want to protect traditional marriage, then let's take it back to what it was traditionally: a financial (and often political) transaction between the groom and the bride's family, accompanied by a large and enticing dowry, and involving no consent whatsoever from the bride.
Or let's recognize what you (and your ilk) are really doing: picking an arbitrary definition of
"traditional" marriage and drawing a line in the sand that, for no objective or secular reason, cannot be crossed. Where is your definition coming from? Certainly not the Bible, which cares not a whit for consent. It's just as arbitrary and just as much a redefinition as "a contract between two consenting adults."
Which itself isn't really a redefinition; the 14th Amendment and the various separate-but-equal court cases guarantee equal rights to all citizens--defining marriage in your fashion would make it the only legal contract I'm aware of that can only be signed between members of the opposite sex. What's the precedent for that? What's the legal reasoning? Why set one contract apart from all others?
OK. I doubt that the GLTBQ crowd would be too happy to accept this argument. You're not doing them any favors by telling us they are no different from anyone else.
How so? They aren't any different from anybody else, except they happen to be wired for attraction to the same sex rather than the opposite one. It's a trivial difference. What they want is what any minority wants: the same rights and treatment as everyone else. And that includes the right to marry whomever they happen to love. Your attempts to paint that as a "super-right" are idiotic at best.
And the rest of your comment is unjustified non sequiturs.
I guess since I was replying to your 'argument' of unjustified non sequiturs, that ought to be expected.
Sorry again for my cursory attention to this thread; I promise more specific scrutiny in a few days.
said...
"I guess you missed the other 9 points of my argument. Anytime you feel like interacting with anything other than the weakest point in my argument, I'll be waiting."
Rho,
Every argument I've ever heard contra gay marriage comes down to these four elements:
1) Dogma: Our sacred scrolls say we shouldn't allow it.
2) Tradition: We've haven't been doing that up until now.
3) Alarmism: Allowing it will somehow harm the social institution of marriage and/or families and/or endanger the welfare of any children involved.
4) Pure Bigotry: But gay people are... GAY!
I dismiss 1) out of hand because I don't give a rat's ass about such Bronze Age superstitious nonsense.
2) doesn't fly because Tradition does not justify anything.
4) is simply repulsive idiocy.
That leaves 3), and your burden of proof for the claims therein. You have done nothing to meet this burden.
said...
Rhology,
Whether or not you believe in objective morality means everything, and for you to say otherwise shows an utter misconception of the ideas we are discussing. Honestly, I have to say by your comments it seems your not even trying to understand subjective morality. You said “Besides, if you don't believe in objective morality, I assume you make NO moral value judgments that you think SHOULD apply to anyone else.” Did you not consider the possibility that an entire culture can live under the same subjective morality. Consider the culture as one individual thing. As far as whether my morality “SHOULD” apply to anyone else, you see I recognize morality as a wholly emotion based value judgment, not an objective universal truth. The word “SHOULD” in this context is a curious thing, one the one hand it can seem to imply some sort of whining for the loss of self-identified divine providence, on the other it could mean what ought to be as logically so. I’ll stick with the later and say that if my moral judgment is concurrently beneficial to the society’s, then what I deem moral should apply to the society as well.
On to murder and war. You may abstain from calling the death of innocents’ murder, but I guarantee your enemies will not miss the opportunity. And should you ever find yourself on the receiving end, I expect you would refer to the act as murder as well.
Regarding your answer “Good things and bad things bring pain. Good things and bad things bring pleasure. Using meth brings pleasure. Is it good? Working out is painful. I guess it's bad by your standards.” Really, you’re going to have to do way better than that. I’m not talking about an instantaneous moment of pleasure or pain being the ultimate determining factor, although it could be. It could alternatively be the sum of the experience, or what we have been told to expect.
You said, “Whether anyone has emotional attachments about others, why does that make any connection to the morality of an action?” You tell me.
That’s all for now, I’ve got to get some sleep.
said...
More on anal sex.... (so to speak)
We need to distinguish what kind of "danger" we're actually talking about.
By far the great danger from gay anal sex is the transmission of HIV. THAT is what cleaned out entire gay neighborhoods in the 80s.
If two gay men do not have HIV (or any other STI), they're not going to get or spread them no matter what they do with each other.
(Promiscuity holds real danger, of course, but also so for straights.)
THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT BEING GAY when it comes to HIV. The epidemiology is the same as for straights.
Also, the claim that the anus is not "designed" for sex is just bizarre, coming from a guy (and I assume Rho is one).
Males derive sexual pleasure from friction and pressure on the penis (duh). If you do something that results in this sensation and it brings you to orgasm, then HUZZAH! your penis is working as "designed."
Now, if we're going to talk biology then the only things "designed" for sex are the actual genitals. It's all about spreading the seed, baby.
But if your definition of sex includes physical pleasure and intimacy, then the whole "design" argument stops in its tracks.
Any way you approach it, there are fatal problems to the "design" argument.
said...
On the issue of Morality, I would also like to point out the a subjective morality does not mean that certain aspects of morality have no basis or reason for existence.
I submit to you that the 'core' moral tenets of most, if not all, societies are based around moral 'truths' that are subjective, but have become 'objective' based on the idea that without them, a functional society could not exist.
Take for example, murder. In a society where is it morally acceptable to simply kill anyone you wish, for any reason, society breaks down and people form groups wherein they decide NOT to kill each other, for their own protection. Thus, the morality of murder being wrong is born as an 'objective' truth, when there is no external source of the truth, other than neccessity.
In fact, all 10 commandments follow these ideals. Without these basis of morals, society could not function correctly. Granted, the 10 commandments couch the moral ideas into much more general and specific terms. Not covetting translates into no stealing, for with theft rampart there can be no trade, upon which society has become built; honoring your mother and father is a motivation of following those in authority, and one that is often questioned when it is pressed, because to fail to follow those in authority in a time of crisis results in the end of a society; adultry is covered under the idea of lying and cheating, which again effect trade, as well as personal dealings, for if one cannot expect another to be honest, how can you have a relationship with them?
The tenets that are religiously based are the exception, and seem, to me, to be included with these 'universally' accepted truths to lend them credence. "Obviously we shouldn't kill, lie, cheat, or steal! Look how correct these other tenets are, so these ones that don't seem to fit must fit, they're on the same list."
So, with that in mind, Morality can be subjective, and still have a compass which points to things which are 'wrong' and which are 'right'.
said...
BrainFromArous: I can't believe you said all that without mentioning the prostate! Stimulating the prostate gland--something that can only be done through anal penetration, causes extreme pleasure and powerful orgasms in men. Gosh, I wonder why it would do that if anal sex were against its "design."
Ai Deng and Daniel: You're walking a well-worn path. Tell Rhology about social contract theory all you like; he'll fail to respond, ignore it, and go on claiming that we have no basis for morals and that no one has ever answered his "arguments."
said...
I got this from freethoughtpedia:
"Black holing
Black 'holing" refers to the endless void of a black hole in space, and it occurs in a debate when an opponent attempts to stall all discourse by continually demanding that you justify each and every future attempt to justify your position. For example, your opponent replies to the claim "psychology states that X is true" by demanding that you define "psychology". When you reply, he then demands that you define the terms used to define 'psychology', and so on, ad infinitum.
We can rightly hold that our opponent is black holing us when our level of justification reaches claims that even our opponent holds to... For example, if the person defined psychology as "the study of human behavior, thought and emotion" and his opponent stated "define thought" he would be black-holing his opponent, if he already agreed as to what the meaning of the word 'thought" entailed."
Do any of you see this as a standard Rhology tactic?
said...
Tom:
One can hope that if it's constantly explained to him in various manners, eventaully the core argument will get through to him, and he will consider it, rather than latching on to strawmen during his arguments.
said...
One can hope that if it's constantly explained to him in various manners, eventaully the core argument will get through to him, and he will consider it, rather than latching on to strawmen during his arguments.
Daniel, that will only happen when he understands that the commandments attributed to the god of the Bible were actually the subjective moral preferences of the persons who wrote the commandments.
said...
Tom, good point about the prostate. Thanks for backing me up. (AHEM.)
Honestly, though, I am more inclined to see that as a happy accident. One does wonder about the first man (or his paramour) to discover that little trick...
said...
TomFoss,
You really didn't know that I responded to you two days later?
Sorry that you didn't see it. Feel free to respond anytime. I didn't ignore your question-begging post at all.
More later.
said...
My points fail to address SSM?
Yes, they do, in regards to your earlier claim that SSM has viable consequences to society in some way. Simply listing a series of speculative points isn't enough. You need to provide justifications. It is in this latter way you have completely failed.
1)"Legal and religious" factors would make it a societal institution. But of course marriage is more than that.
They do? It is? Where exactly are these things defined -- for the societal institution, that is?
2) See above, answered to Ai Deng. I have read that -- but I don't see the connection to my question, but perhaps I am merely being dense. Please explain how the 'behavior' of people marrying is going to impact society in a negative way?
(By the way, #3 was actually your point regarding SSM being some kind of super-right you would not be granted -- I will interpret your removal of this point from this discussion as an tacit acknowledgment that you were completely wrong on this one).
So changing the family unit from one man, one woman, and children to one man, one man, and children is not a qualitative or social change? Dream on.
Again, who is suggesting changing the family unit other than you? Same-Sex family units already exist legally and always have. SSM laws will not change their frequencies in our current society in anyway. Once again, your argument here has no basis in reality.
4) I say we just change those polygamy laws too. Give me a good reason why not.
Do you really want to pursue this avenue of thought? As Tommy astutely points out, polygamy is a completely separate issue from SSM and as both Ai Deng and I have already mentioned your form of argumentation here is a classical logical fallacy discussed in every college freshman class that addresses critical thinking. You are falsely assuming that one argument for the legalization of one form of marriage somehow helps an argument for all other form of marriage. How? What is the common mechanism you see at work here? This is a fatuous link you attempt to make between all forms of marriage you might imagine.
As far as "wild extremes", they're argumenta ad absurdum. I suggest you look it up. They're YOUR position, taken to the extreme.
I realize what you were attempting, but the "adsurdum" part cuts both ways. Unless you first present a mechanism that would reasonably suggest how all forms of marriage might be legalized simply because one of them was legalized, you are the one who looks absurd, rather than the argument you are attempting (but failing) to attack. I may say your adult belief in God is silly because an adult belief in Santa is silly -- but that argument fails in the same way your argument fails. Simply because we call them both beliefs, or forms of marriage, does not mean there is anything else held in common. You need causal connections to justify a connection. The obvious similarities of love itself present in heterosexual and homosexual relationships is enough to justify an argument for treating them equally -- but to argue that my love of a paint can is the same as heterosexual or homosexual love has no basis in human psychology -- the main legal source of authority behind such determinations. If you have viable evidence that demonstrates the relationships between pedophiles and children, humans and animals, the living and the dead, etc. are in fact similar to that between a man and a woman or two homosexual adults, the world would love to hear it. Until then, your comments in this vein not only make you look ridiculous they hint that you also may lack any working understanding of what two humans mean when they say they are in love.
You were the one who wanted me to repeat my arguments here, so I did so and now you're saying "it's just a repeat". Um, that's what you asked for.
No, I asked to engage you in conversation on the topic. Cut & pasting is not conversing, it is regurgitation. I realize that perhaps in some religious circles many people cannot tell the difference, but I think most people here recognize both for what they are. Please, I encourage you to simply converse instead. Thank you.
said...
Tom foss wrote: Ai Deng and Daniel: You're walking a well-worn path. Tell Rhology about social contract theory all you like; he'll fail to respond, ignore it, and go on claiming that we have no basis for morals and that no one has ever answered his "arguments."
...while you're at it also mention that social contract theory was also far more influential than the Christian Bible in the creation of the US Constitution, it's Bill of Rights, and it's many amendments (namely the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments come to mind for their particular lack of Biblical support) as well as the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968 (which also lack any Biblical or scriptural backing). Clearly these must be among the most amoral documents ever written by mankind....
said...
Hi all, sorry for the delay. Unable to carve out the time.
Tom Foss:
Yes, it applies to all anal sex. That is not all there is to the homosexual lifestyle, however, that causes such a drastic reduction in lifespan. Extreme promiscuity, attendant drug use, violence, etc. And about suicide, that's a fair point, but I'd question whether that is strictly due to people being mean to the homosexual. That said, i consider this a rather minor point in my 10.
Police officers, et al, have the same rights to marriage as everyone else. Homosexuals are demanding a change in the institution. So the answer to your question is no.
Drunk driving is dangerous to others, yes.
This assertion begs the question mightily, however. If I'm right, homosexuality and SSM harm others as well, thru loss of family members and friends and employees to early death, and thru the poor example and poor parenting of SS couples' marriages.
Further, on atheism, you need to justify your definition of "danger" and why putting others in danger is morally objectionable. I guess that's where your most recent blogpost and attendant comment on my blog on the social contract theory comes in, so let the reader judge on this point.
You say I've displayed bigotry, yet don't say how or where. Where do I say anythg about homosexuals being awfuler than others, or call out one homosexual for the actions of others in general?
I take it you'd be in favor of removing the idea of mutual consent, then. Cool. How about removing the part about marrying only one companion, and the part about said companion being human? Or maybe you'd prefer the entire institution be done away with?
BrainFrom Arous:
Your 4 points - why should anyone be impressed that you are able to recount idiocies that others have told you in the past? Deal with *me*.
You said:
THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT BEING GAY when it comes to HIV.
The head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is on public record disagreeing with you. I think I'll go with him rather than you.
Ai Deng:
Did you not consider the possibility that an entire culture can live under the same subjective morality.
So if a whole bunch of people think it, then that makes it right? Or objective? Binding on others? Why?
Consider the culture as one individual thing.
Why should I or anyone else?
you see I recognize morality as a wholly emotion based value judgment, not an objective universal truth.
Fair enough. So when someone disagrees with you, you just emote at them? Is there any way to figure out which emoting corresponds to reality?
Or perhaps there is no real position on this. In which case you chose your position 100% arbitrarily, with nothing else to shore it up. Thus any assertion you make on the topic (or any other moral topic) can be defeated by a simple naked assertion to the contrary. Wow, that's impressive thinking! Makes me want to be an atheist right now.
say that if my moral judgment is concurrently beneficial to the society’s, then what I deem moral should apply to the society as well.
1) You beg the question b/c you've already admitted you have no objective way to define morality, and "beneficial" is a moral judgment.
2) I simply feel that if my moral judgment is concurrently counterproductive to the society’s, then what I deem moral should apply to the society as well. There we go. Now, which of us is right and how do you know? Do us all a favor and THINK rather than FEEL.
You may abstain from calling the death of innocents’ murder
What a foolish thing to say! War may entail the accidental killing of non-combatants, yes, but that's not the same thing as intentional unjustified killing, which is the definition of murder. Seriously, think.
I’m not talking about an instantaneous moment of pleasure or pain being the ultimate determining factor, although it could be.
You've already said that your emotional judgment is the determining factor. Why are you still talking?
Daniel said:
Morality can be subjective, and still have a compass which points to things which are 'wrong' and which are 'right'.
??? No, you're begging the question. Here's what you mean: Morality can be subjective, and still have a compass which points to things which could probably be seen to be expedient by most and which might not be.
DagoRed:
You said:
1) Where exactly are these things defined -- for the societal institution, that is?
The law. I provided a definition for you in this very combox.
2) Please explain how the 'behavior' of people marrying is going to impact society in a negative way?
See my above reply to Tom Foss.
3) I will interpret your removal of this point from this discussion
No, you should interpret it as my having limited time and not feeling like replying to your "rebuttal", since I found it extraordinarily weak. That's what I do when I think my point has not even been touched - let the reader judge.
who is suggesting changing the family unit other than you?
Um, you are. From one man and one woman getting married to one man and one man... not that hard.
4) polygamy is a completely separate issue from SSM
Then you grant it?
It's not separate b/c it deals with the characteristics of marriage.
Remember, I listed it out, but I thought of this modification over the week that might help.
Marriage currently is:
1. One
2. Man and
3. one woman
4. of marriageable age
5. where mutual consent is present
You want to change 2 or 3. I merely suggest changing others as well. Why not?
The obvious similarities of love itself present in heterosexual and homosexual relationships is enough to justify an argument for treating them equally
As if the presence of love is a legal or institutional concern. Red herring. What, they didn't teach you about red herrings in your logic class?
social contract theory was also far more influential than the Christian Bible in the creation of the US Constitution...
Non-sequitur. (You missed that day in class too, I see.) Just b/c some people find it useful doesn't shield it from even one of my critiques of it, let alone answer the charge that it is not an objective moral foundation.
Clearly these must be among the most amoral documents ever written by mankind
1) And another non-sequitur. Were they stocking stuffers at your house for Christmas or something? An idea that comes from a faulty foundation, mind, or system can still stumble upon the truth. You are committing the genetic fallacy in a backward way.
That's 3 classic fallacies in only 2 comments, and you want to lecture me about logic? Save it.
2) On Christianity, we expect many and even most humans to hold to a moral system that approximates the biblical one, b/c deep down everyone knows that the God of the Bible exists, and He has written His law in everyone's heart. We press against it and try to suppress it to varying degrees, but it always squirts out somewhere, belying the inconsistency within your own worldview that you sense is there but can't bring yourself to admit, b/c then you might have to face up to God.
Peace,
Rhology
said...
??? No, you're begging the question. Here's what you mean: Morality can be subjective, and still have a compass which points to things which could probably be seen to be expedient by most and which might not be.
Not at all, as I pointed out, there are certain actities that if you were to do them, would result in the end of society. These things are neccessary for a society to exist, and thus it is wrong to perform these acts.
said...
Rhology,
Now you are being an insulting intellectually non-thinking ass. Perhaps Tom Foss is right, I am beating a dead horse with you. Your responses to my statements do not follow what I was explaining, and it got much worse with each passing statement, which tells me you were rushing. Perhaps you are simply unable to comprehend the concept, or unwilling.
said...
Daniel,
It hasn't been shown that society existing is objectively good (or bad). It just IS. You run afoul of the IS/OUGHT conflation as well. Why is it bad if it leads to the destruction of society?
Ai Deng,
OK. You made no argument, so...
said...
"It hasn't been shown that society existing is objectively good (or bad). It just IS. You run afoul of the IS/OUGHT conflation as well. Why is it bad if it leads to the destruction of society?"
If nothing else, then the existance of society means my own survival is more likely.
And I would like to say that society existing isn't objectively good or bad, true, but to people, the members of society, it is subjectively good, because it is their survival at stake. You keep trying to pull morality back to an objective source, but as I, and others, have said, there isn't one.
said...
Cool, there isn't one.
So it is not objectively true that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Why even bother arguing about it?
Shoot, why bother arguing about ANYthing moral? It's not like your or my existence's being more likely is morally good (or bad). So, murder, rape, petting puppy dogs, donating all one's money...to skinhead organisations, so what? What does it matter? What does anything matter?
You may say "But I want to survive". Again, so what? That's just a desire. Maybe I'd like to kill you.
This is no way to get a society, for those of you who are concerned about that. If you want to be consistent (which, again, is a-moral, on atheism), stop making moral judgments. Which means the post that Martin wrote is inconsistent with atheism. Martin is acting like a Christian when he writes with moral outrage.
said...
Not at all Rhol,
First, if nothing else, one can accept a purely selfish motivation for acting good, survival and, on top of that, enjoyment of life. Now, you might say, "There is no point" in which case there is no point in talking anymore, because that, the idea of survival and enjoyment, is the entire point of existence, it's why we exist.
Subjective morality is based on improving one's enjoyment and chances of survival, and society does just that. Morality from this standpoint isn't 'good' or 'evil' simply right and wrong. This means that things which improve our enjoyment and survival are right, and things that decrease it are wrong.
For homosexual marriage? There is nothing morally wrong with it, because it doesn't detract in someone's ability to enjoy or to survive. However, preventing them from getting married will lower their own enjoyment of life, and, potentially, their ability to survive.
Now it's important to differentiate here, that some things are choices that people can make, such as smoking, which increase enjoyment and lower survivability, and those are neither moral or amoral. these are acceptable because they are choices that an individual makes for themselves.
I'm sure you'll try to bring up rape or child abuse as a 'choice' that someone can make which 'feels good', but you're forcing that choice upon someone else, making it morally wrong.
But, as has been said, I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Since I don't follow your God, I have absolutely no morals, so after this I'm going to just bow out, especially since you are simply overlooking every explanation that has been given and jumping straight to everyone should run around killing each other.
said...
Daniel,
You need to make an argument.
Statements like these:
This means that things which improve our enjoyment and survival are right, and things that decrease it are wrong.
There is nothing morally wrong with it, because it doesn't detract in someone's ability to enjoy or to survive.
preventing them from getting married will lower their own enjoyment of life, and, potentially, their ability to survive.
these are acceptable because they are choices that an individual makes for themselves.
...are just naked assertions. You accuse me of overlooking things, yet you don't even attempt to ground your assertions in any argumentation. It's as if you think you're some kind of secular morality Pope. Pardon me if I don't recognise your mitre.
You said:
I have absolutely no morals, so after this I'm going to just bow out, especially since you are simply overlooking every explanation that has been given and jumping straight to everyone should run around killing each other.
Now you're just lying or you're brashly, grossly, incompetently inconsistent. You just finished telling everyone what's right and wrong and then you say you have no morals.
And you mistook me - my argument is not that everyone should run around killing each other. It's that there's no SHOULD at all, so kill everyone or love everyone, it makes zero difference.
said...
Woohoo! Intentional misquoting!
the full quote was "Because I don't follow your God I have no morals"
Please, try to keep up.
said...
So now you're a mindreader and can know that the "misquoting" was intentional, eh?
I don't like misquoting, so please correct me.
And tell me how I got you wrong.
said...
If I'm right, homosexuality and SSM harm others as well, thru loss of family members and friends and employees to early death, and thru the poor example and poor parenting of SS couples' marriages.
Again, you are lumping gay couples that practice monogamy and safe sex practices with someone who engages in unprotected activity with multiple partners. The latter will have shorter life spans than the former. That is why we have public health campaigns to encourage safe sex practices.
As I wrote above, you are taking the behavior of a subset of the population and then applying it to the rest of the group.
Perhaps, you should just stick to "The Bible says it's wrong."
said...
Tommy,
One can only surmise that you've forgotten the comment where I gave TEN arguments for my position.
said...
Rhology --
You still lack any and all support for a single point you have made in this discussion.
1) The law [defines the societal institution]. I provided a definition for you in this very combox.
Actually, this is the first time you have provided a lucid definition for your meaningless term of "societal institution." If “the law” is what you initially meant by “societal institution”, then, let's insert the term into your original comment, “Why should we change the law to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?”
This is a point that addresses the structure of government itself, and has nothing to do with SSM initiatives. If you wish to challenge the very purpose of having a legislation, which has a primary objective to mitigate human behavior in our society, then that is an entirely separate discussion.
2) I said: Please explain how the 'behavior' of people marrying is going to impact society in a negative way?
You said: See my above reply to Tom Foss.
I understand you have a separate argument that opposes male-homosexuality which you are having with Tom Foss (and another separate discussion about morality with Ai Deng). Please stop referencing other discussions that fail to address my point.
Now, I will ask again more carefully this time – since homosexuality is currently entirely legal, how would legalizing SSM do anything other than discourage some of the behavior – like promiscuity – you are complaining about among homosexuals? What inherent traits exist in marriage that uniquely encourage worse behavior of homosexuals? Your argument so far has been an exercise in obfuscation. You have been addressing many things, except the issue you used this point to initially justify -- remember? The one where you asserted having some kind of reasonable argument against SSM....
3) I said: I will interpret your removal of this point from this discussion as an tacit acknowledgment that you were completely wrong.
you said: I found it extraordinarily weak. That's what I do when I think my point has not even been touched
Wow! I must say, not only is that a really lazy attitude, your conclusion here seems entirely delusional. Care to elucidate for the rest of us on the weaknesses of the argument? You called SSM a “super right” that would not be available to you, and I posed a specific scenario that showed you exactly how you can utilize a SSM law yourself. That argument actually refutes your initial point in it's entirety. It was a slam-dunk refutation through a viable counter example. You just failed completely, and didn't even notice. I sure hope you don't have a job where you do anything of critical importance for society.
I said : who is suggesting changing the family unit other than you?
You said : Um, you are. From one man and one woman getting married to one man and one man... not that hard.
The only redefinition of family going on here, is being done entirely by you. You would think its not that hard, but you don't seem to understand the definition of family. Just which dictionary definition fits your idea you just gave us? In particular, where does it say “marriage” is an intrinsic requirement for a family? Or that a family requires “one man and one woman”? The family I grew with doesn't fit your definition (and, no, my parents weren't homosexuals) – does that mean you don't think I grew up in a family? I am still waiting for your reasoning -- just one small legitimate idea will do -- how exactly does SSM change a real, legitimate definition of family (and not a weird redefinition you simply invent)?
4) I said: polygamy is a completely separate issue from SSM
you said: Then you grant it?
Grant what? Are you asking if I am a proponent for polygamy as a new legal form of marriage in America? I don't know, I haven't really put much thought to it before. What are the pro's and con's? Actually, forget that questions – this has nothing to do with our discussion of SSM. Can you please stay on topic for a change?
It's not separate b/c it deals with the characteristics of marriage.
Remember, I listed it out, but I thought of this modification over the week that might help.
Marriage currently is:
1. One
2. Man and
3. one woman
4. of marriageable age
5. where mutual consent is present
You want to change 2 or 3. I merely suggest changing others as well. Why not?
You may suggest any changes you want, and I may suggest any changes I want. But your implication is that if either one of us has our suggestions made legal, such a law becomes a precedent, or grounds, for the other person's idea to be made legal – and that is not a logical step whatsoever. SSM has no bearing on any attempt for the legalization of any other from of marriage you have suggested. You really need to get a handle on the slippery slope fallacy and stop depending upon it for your argument.
I said: The obvious similarities of love itself present in heterosexual and homosexual relationships is enough to justify an argument for treating them equally
you said: As if the presence of love is a legal or institutional concern.
Are you really this thoughtless? I suggest you look up “crime of passion” and read up on how it does exactly that -- it takes love into account in many legal situations and it is liberally applied in all fifty states as well as at the federal level.
Red herring. What, they didn't teach you about red herrings in your logic class?
An argument from similarities is not a red herring. I suggest you stop attempting to point out other people's logical fallacies until you master a rudimentary grasp of them yourself.
I will take your points of view on social contract law under consideration, but perhaps we can leave that argument for another day? I do believe we have enough to contemplate on SSM alone.
said...
One can only surmise that you've forgotten the comment where I gave TEN arguments for my position.
No, I haven't. I was just focusing on one argument you made that I had already addressed earlier on which you seemed to have overlooked. So, I just gave you a friendly reminder. :-)
said...
It's not separate b/c it deals with the characteristics of marriage.
Remember, I listed it out, but I thought of this modification over the week that might help.
Marriage currently is:
1. One
2. Man and
3. one woman
4. of marriageable age
5. where mutual consent is present
You want to change 2 or 3. I merely suggest changing others as well. Why not?
Actually, what we are proposing makes your list smaller:
1. Two people
2. of marriageable age
3. where mutual consent is present.
Nothing more need be changed. As an analogy, think of expanding the right to vote. At first, it was white males with property, then all white males, then black men got the vote, then women. Then the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Just because a voting right is expanded doesn't mean we have to give it to 5 year olds and chimpanzees.
Legalizing SSM does not open the floodgates to the absurd examples you proposed. It is merely expanding the right to marry to a small minority of the population that meets the criteria I list above.
said...
Rhology wrote: One can only surmise that you've forgotten the comment where I gave TEN arguments for my position.
While I am sure we are all happy to see that you can actually count flawlessly to ten, you still need to hone your ability to list actual relevant points that address the topic at hand. Calling your numbered items actual 'arguments' bends the definition of that word into a pretzel.
said...
Tommy,
Actually, what we are proposing makes your list smaller:
1. Two people
2. of marriageable age
3. where mutual consent is present.
Why not simplify it even more to:
1. People
2. of age
3. where mutual consent is present.
You know, to allow Mormons like Warren Jeffs and Hippie Communes to exist in peace. Just another benefit and promotion of evolution. It works for seals, why not us?
said...
Hi DagoRed,
1) If “the law” is what you initially meant by “societal institution”
It's not. It indicates it, however. Your team seems to be quite fond of social contract type stuff. Marriage is held to be what I said by the majority of Americans.
let's insert the term into your original comment, “Why should we change the law to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?”
That's not the same question, but it's another good one.
a legislation, which has a primary objective to mitigate human behavior in our society
And it also responds to societal behavior and direction. It's not a one-way street.
2) how would legalizing SSM do anything other than discourage some of the behavior – like promiscuity – you are complaining about among homosexuals?
a. Homosexual behavior in and of itself is immoral and evil. That question is why the reference I made to the other discussions are relevant.
b. My original point #2 is "Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior", so I'm not sure how your assertion here is relevant, but of course questions of justification are directly relevant to the discussion with Tom Foss et al.
Just which dictionary definition fits your idea you just gave us?
You may be aware that dictionaries are not the only way we define words. In this case, family is a societal institution, as I said above.
Of course, following that link takes us to the 1st definition: parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not.
A SSM couple can't be parents with children, b/c they can't sexually reproduce.
These definition-games are precarious - we have to be careful about defining our terms, I agree.
4) Are you asking if I am a proponent for polygamy as a new legal form of marriage in America?
I'm asking you what your argument against changing one element of marriage would be as opposed to changing another.
You may suggest any changes you want, and I may suggest any changes I want.
Sounds like you grant my point here.
SSM has no bearing on any attempt for the legalization of any other from of marriage you have suggested.
You repeat the slippery slope strawman. I'm not making that argument, and I've already specifically repudiated it. Go talk to some Focus on the Family hack if you want that argument.
I want to know WHY it wouldn't have any REASONABLE bearing on this question.
I suggest you look up “crime of passion” and read up on how it does exactly that -- it takes love into account in many legal situations and it is liberally applied in all fifty states as well as at the federal level.
A foolish category error - you're really grasping for straws.
Please define how love plays into marriage LEGALLY and REASONABLY.
Just b/c love is a major factor for many people doesn't mean it is for all, or even most, much less that it has to be even a minor factor.
I suggest you stop attempting to point out other people's logical fallacies
You brought it up. Glass stones, throwing houses, something like that.
Tommy said:
Actually, what we are proposing makes your list smaller:
I take issue with your #1 (obviously). Since the institution has been, up to this time, as I said more specifically than your list, this doesn't really get us anywhere. I know this is your position. Now argue for why it SHOULD be realised.
expanding the right to vote. At first, it was white males with property, then all white males, then black men got the vote, then women.
What is your argument that the right to vote is a valid analogy?
Why not the legal right to drink alcohol? Maybe we could make marriage under 21, then abolish marriage, then bring it back to 21 again. Only you can't be married while driving or operating heavy machinery.
Or the right to be elected President? Can't get married unless you're over 35, born in the US, etc?
The answer is obvious - this question is in its own category.
Legalizing SSM does not open the floodgates to the absurd examples you proposed.
I don't believe that for one second, but that's not my argument. Do you even read my comments, like the one where I specifically denied any appeal to a slippery-slope argument?
Peace,
Rhology
said...
Rhology:
"a. Homosexual behavior in and of itself is immoral and evil."
Really? Why?
said...
B/c it is in conflict with the objective moral standard that is the Bible. You may well be inclined to argue, and that's fine though a little off-topic. I'd suggest you posit a workable alternative objective moral standard before you get too critical.
said...
Moral standards are subjective by nature.
You chose the bible as your moral standard. You could have chosen something else.
said...
Of course, I could've chosen a subjective standard. Read the post to which I linked before saying something that is refuted therein.
said...
The moral standard that you chose is based on nothing more than your personal preference. Unless you have objective credible evidence that the biblegod actually exists.
Do you?
said...
Rhology,
1) Your team seems to be quite fond of social contract type stuff.
Marriage is held to be what I said by the majority of Americans.
Okay. If 'majority opinion' is what you meant by 'societal institution' then lets try it a third time -- your point would be -- “Why should we change amajority opinion to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?” Is that the extent of your argument here? Can you stop your games of mincing words and moving targets and, I don't know, state a coherent argument for a change?
2) a. Homosexual behavior in and of itself is immoral and evil. That question is why the reference I made to the other discussions are relevant.
b. My original point #2 is "Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior", so I'm not sure how your assertion here is relevant, but of course questions of justification are directly relevant to the discussion with Tom Foss et al.
I understand your position perfectly. My point remains -- you failed to address the issue at hand with this argument. Your ideas and beliefs regarding homosexual morality is entirely tangential to SSM. I think the behavior of telemarketers is immoral, much like you think homosexual behavior is immoral, but how would the immorality of a telemarketer's actions dictate a discussion on whether or not a telemarketer has the right to marry? It can't. So, unless there is something you wish to point out that is wrong with the 'behavior' of marriage itself, or this 'tendency' of people to want to be married, the general use of 'behaviors' and 'tendencies' in this argument about marriage has no bearing just as a discussion on the morality of the people who may mostly benefit from such laws has no bearing. This is still a red herring.
3) You may be aware that dictionaries are not the only way we define words.
Since you were providing a definition that bears little, if any, resemblance to any of the definitions, it doesn't surprise me you would make this kind of tack. I could agree with you if we were talking about dictionary definitions for a relatively complex idea. But, since we are talking about a very simple word like 'family' your point here is spurious.
These definition-games are precarious - we have to be careful about defining our terms
I disagree, words, when used correctly are the exact opposite of precarious. It only becomes a precarious definition-game, as you say, for those who resort to weird and twisted ways of redefining words in a futile attempt to defend arguments they have already lost.
4) I'm asking you what your argument against changing one element of marriage would be as opposed to changing another.
Since each marriage idea is an independent concept, each case would have to be made or lost upon their own merits. Any argument would entirely depend upon the specifics of each case argued.
I said: You may suggest any changes you want, and I may suggest any changes I want.
you said: Sounds like you grant my point here.
How so? Since when is making a suggestion the same thing as proposing a viable argument?
You repeat the slippery slope strawman.
I want to know WHY it wouldn't have any REASONABLE bearing on this question.
It is no strawman. I'll explain it again. Your argument suggests that to change the legal definition of marriage once will lead to a many other legal changes to the definition of marriage in the future simply because they all are forms of marriage. This is a claim that has no integrity. It's like saying, because the drugs “Lipitor” and “Zoloft” are legal, therefore, we need to also make “heroin” legal too because it is also a drug. Legalization of one kind of drug, like one kind of marriage, does not support the arguments for the legalization of any other kind. Each drug, and each form of marriage, has to stand or fall on their own specific merits.
you said: As if the presence of love is a legal or institutional concern. Red herring.
I said: I suggest you look up “crime of passion”
you said: A foolish category error - you're really grasping for straws.
Sorry, wrong. You were the one who failed to couch your claim in any sort of “category.” I might have reasonably assumed you were referring only to our current topic, but given your tendency to continually splinter off onto tangents I cannot reasonably assume that, can I? (Hey, look, is this yet another tangent pursued by Rhology? Why, yes, it is! Gee, I wish we could finish one discussion before starting four more...)
Please define how love plays into marriage LEGALLY and REASONABLY.
'Love' plays into "marriage LEGALLY and REASONABLY” like any other idea discussed in law, as part of an argument made by a legislator when considering a proposed piece of legislation.
Just b/c love is a major factor for many people doesn't mean it is for all, or even most, much less that it has to be even a minor factor.
Wow! We finally agree on something.
said...
On second thought even if the biblegod did exist it would still be your personal preference to accept the bible as your moral standard. So...nevermind.
said...
Rhology,
Just read something in the news that I thought pertains directly to what I was explaining about subject morality as it relates to how we refer to deaths in war. My claim, morality is subjective. In an article about the ongoing conflict in Gaza, I read the following:
""These injuries are not survivable injuries," said Madth Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor at Gaza's Shifa hospital who could not save another boy who had both feet blown off. "This is a murder. This is a child," he said."
The article can be found at http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2162013.htm
The point that I am trying to make from the article, if you couldn't tell, is what this doctor refers to the death as, murder. It certainly has relevance given what I said earlier.
said...
Dan Triple Cross wrote:
Why not simplify it even more to:
1. People
2. of age
3. where mutual consent is present.
You know, to allow Mormons like Warren Jeffs and Hippie Communes to exist in peace. Just another benefit and promotion of evolution. It works for seals, why not us?
Well Dan, the polygamy lovers will have to make their case for it and win me over.
As for SSM, I can't see any reason why two people of the same gender in a longstanding monogamous relationship should not have the same right to marry as heteros who get married and divorced multiple times. It does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. It certainly does not affect my marriage in anyway.
The argument against SSM ultimately boils down to the same objections religious people have to teaching about gays in schools, "We can't have our children seeing gays as normal human beings who work, pay taxes, contribute to the community, etc., because otherwise they might want to be gay too!"
Rhology
said...
Hi all,
Been busy. Thx for your patience.
Strongernow, yes, I have tons of evidence that the God of the Bible exists.
And I chose to follow one moral standard, yes, but it is objective, that is, it's true whether anyone believes it or not, and it is not dependent on the believer in it, like, say, Tom Foss' moral standard is.
DagoRed said:
1) majority opinion
I don't think you're making a good faith effort to understand my point here. "Societal institution" is a straight-forward term. If you don't want to work with it, let's just leave this part where it is and let the reader judge.
2) Your ideas and beliefs regarding homosexual morality is entirely tangential to SSM.
I agree. This point is more of a rebuttal to SSM advocates who say stuff like "legalising SSM is the right thing to do" and "it's immoral to deny homosexuals the right to marry people of the same sex".
a telemarketer's actions dictate a discussion on whether or not a telemarketer has the right to marry?
Bad analogy - there are both hetero and (I'd assume) homosexual telemarketers.
I feel your pain, actually - I am often unable to come up with good analogies to communicate stuff, but others are able to do it seemingly effortlessly. A bit frustrating...
3) It only becomes a precarious definition-game
A lot of empty bloviating, since you didn't interact with the point.
4) Since each marriage idea is an independent concept, each case would have to be made or lost upon their own merits
What's your argument for the statement that each marriage "idea" (as you put it) is an independent concept?
Does the "marriage" of three male bison to each other constitute a reasonable marriage? If not, why not?
Your argument suggests that to change the legal definition of marriage once will lead to a many other legal changes to the definition of marriage in the future
Wrong. If you can't grasp it now, I see little reason to keep repeating myself. Go back and read what I already said.
'Love' plays into "marriage LEGALLY and REASONABLY” like any other idea discussed in law, as part of an argument made by a legislator when considering a proposed piece of legislation.
The point is that love is totally unnecessary for any legal institution of marriage. Any and all married couples in the world could not love each other and it would make no difference as to their nuptial status unless they acted to initiate divorce proceedings. And of course people can get married absent love as well. This is a sappy appeal to emotions, and you might get my mom to shed some tears of pity for you, but I leave emotions out of it.
Tommy skated blithely past my points above and said:
As for SSM, I can't see any reason why two people of the same gender in a longstanding monogamous relationship should not have the same right to marry
And they do. See my point 3).
The argument against SSM ultimately boils down to the same objections religious people have to teaching about gays in schools
Um, Tommy, my 10 arguments don't. You're just saying the same old crap as BrainFromArous said above. Are you intentionally being stupid, or do you just refuse to learn?
Looks like this thread is dying down, and my 10 points have come thru virtually unscathed. It's been an ugly few weeks for proponents of SSM.
On a tangent, Ai Deng said:
""These injuries are not survivable injuries," said Madth Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor at Gaza's Shifa hospital who could not save another boy who had both feet blown off. "This is a murder. This is a child," he said."
And? I'm inclined to lay this right at the feet of Hamas.
In war, sometimes there is collateral damage. A just warrior will do his best to eliminate/limit collateral damage while trying to win the war, yes, but sometimes crap happens.
You provided none of the surrounding context beyond this dr's say-so. Was he there when the sad event took place?
Four Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza, which strike southern cities and towns at random and cause property damage and panic among the local population.
Was that murder? They strike "cities and towns at random". So yes, that's murder - they're not attacking combatants or military installations or personnel, but rather people's backyards. This is what's called "context", and it's important to discussions of morality.
said...
Looks like this thread is dying down, and my 10 points have come thru virtually unscathed. It's been an ugly few weeks for proponents of SSM.
If by unscathed you mean people have continuously showed you how they are wrong but you refuse to acknowledge any point which does so, then sure, why not.
said...
Rhology,
Do you consider slavery to be objectively moral or immoral? On what grounds do you base this judgement?
said...
"Slavery" is too broad to be able to say yes or no. What kind did you have in mind? I'll need a fair amount of detail.
said...
Tommy skated blithely past my points above and said:
As for SSM, I can't see any reason why two people of the same gender in a longstanding monogamous relationship should not have the same right to marry
And they do. See my point 3).
I was responding to Dan, you blockhead.
Um, Tommy, my 10 arguments don't. You're just saying the same old crap as BrainFromArous said above. Are you intentionally being stupid, or do you just refuse to learn?
Wrong. Your opposition to gay marriage is religious based. Your arguments are just meant to be additional props. I did focus on one in particular that I thought you were way off on, the health issue. Since I was not the only person here disagreeing with you, I did not feel the need to address them point by point.
As for me refusing to learn, that assumes you have anything valid to teach me.
Looks like this thread is dying down, and my 10 points have come thru virtually unscathed. It's been an ugly few weeks for proponents of SSM.
Like I've said before, you're a legend in your own mind, Rhology! :-)
said...
Rhology said: Looks like this thread is dying down, and my 10 points have come thru virtually unscathed. It's been an ugly few weeks for proponents of SSM.
You know, I have always thought there was a strong similarity between evangelical Christians and gangsters and I think I just found out what it is.
This whole discussion reminded me of a scene in “Guy and Dolls” when the big-time gangster Big Jule, after losing all his money, forces Sky Masterson to bankroll him in a craps games with Big Jule's own 'special' dice -- which are totally blank on all six sides. Big Jule, of course, explains to Sky Masterson not to worry because he “remembers where all the spots used to be”.
Rhology, you are 'Big Jule' if ever there was one.
said...
Rhology,
I thought it was obvious, but I'm refering to slavery of human beings. Objectively moral or immoral? Grounds?
said...
Ai Deng,
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough in my question. There have been many instances of human slavery in human history. To which institution(s) do you refer?
As for the grounds I use, I use the objective standard of the Bible, just as a preview. So you might pick out a given instance of slavery, and I'd analyse it in light of biblical moral teaching.
Peace,
Rhology
said...
Rhology,
In not outright condemning human slavery as either moral or immoral, it seems you are leaving open the possibility that some forms of human slavery are objectively morally justified. Would you care to share some instances in which you feel the slavery of human beings is objectively morally justified?
said...
The Old Testament form is the only one that comes to mind offhand.
said...
Rhology,
What is objectively moral Old Testament slavery?
Do you think that it still applies today? I mean, could I own a slave and that would be good and acceptable in god's eyes?
said...
Ai Deng,
So as to preserve the topic at hand in this post, I answered you here.
Cheers!
said...
Rho:" I have tons of evidence that the God of the Bible exists."
Really? I suspect that there is a reason you left off the part about said "evidence" being credible and objective. Why is that?
"And I chose to follow one moral standard, yes, but it is objective, that is, it's true whether anyone believes it or not."
Do you knwow what the word "objective" means?
I understand that you prefer a "standard" of morality that you believe is true.
However, I think your "standard" is flawed. Deeply flawed, whether this biblegod exists in objective reality or not.
You seem to be trying to persuade me with a "might makes right" argument while at the same time failing to show any "might" or "right" in your assertion.
said...
Stronger now,
Really? I suspect that there is a reason you left off the part about said "evidence" being credible and objective. Why is that?
I will give it a shot. In the Atheistic worldview someone could rape and murder you with no fear of anything bad happening to them if they are not caught by people. Objective morality just doesn't exist in the atheists worldview. If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if their honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose. People don't live like that though, we go to school and turn in papers on time so you can get the grade. With the Atheistic worldview, school doesn't matter; grades don't matter; education doesn't matter; nothing matters with that worldview. It could all be a mirage or an illusion even, it could all be a waste of time. Along with that, there is no answer for origins of life. If fact, they don't know if they themselves even exist. It's a sad worldview when you don't even know if you yourself exists. You cannot say you are infallibly and inherently sure if 2+2=4 even. If atheism is true then Christianity is pretty ridiculous but again, if you're honest, you have no way of knowing that for sure, you have no way of knowing anything is true. Christianity, on the other hand, is completely compatible with reality, relative to Radical Skepticism.
Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. We do have a revelation to the origin of life. Life doesn't come from non-life, life doesn't come from matter. Life comes from a Creative being called God. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally. It's the only option available to man if we are going to save the household of knowledge.
God is an all good God, according to Christian theism, which again is another necessity precondition for morality. Therefore, an all good God could not allow things get so bad in His universe whereby we don't have this concrete revelation of who He is and what He has done. So, therefore, the revelation that we do have, that we have to presuppose does become the transcendental (what first has to be the case in order to make the human experience intelligible) for meaningfulness, therefore it's necessitated. The Bible gives us that worldview that makes sense for human experience.
Let's apply that. Transcendentally, 2+2=4 is a law and conceptual, therefore it has to flow from a Divine mind and for it always to be the case and universally binding then it needs to come from a Divine mind that is omnipotent and immutable. So tomorrow 2+2 is still going to equal 4 as it was yesterday it has to become eternal, immaterial, abstract, and binding to all men which is only possible with the triune God of Scripture. Plus, in order for you to say 2+2=4 you have to be cognitive in your ability to reason in communication universally, plus you assume we will be cognitive to the same degree to understand what you mean. It's an immaterial universal concept, it's not tangible, it's not material or even tied to anything physical in this universe. So in order for you to say the concept and for me to comprehend the concept requires our minds have to be wired up the same way. We both have the ability to process that type of information. The Engineer wired us so that the espoused 2+2=4 can be cognitively, logically understood, and immutable.
said...
Dan, why do you believe what them wicked liars wrote?
Get back on the wheel little hamster, and see how your circular reasoning works out for you.
said...
Dan, no offense, since this is the first time I've seen you post here, but this a long-winded versions of what we've all heard before.
And your whole post is like a logical fallacy salad.
If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if their honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose
Here you give us a false dilemma - where you assert that the only two honest and consistent positions are biblical Christianity, as you define it, or radical skepticism.
It also looks like the slippery slope fallacy, where you take what you deem your first undesirable action - rejecting Christianity, and indicating that honesty and consistency demands a 'slide' to an ultimate undesirable - radical skepticism.
Those are just a few examples. I'm sure many other readers can point out others.
said...
Dan,
You start with a common misconception, and then take a leap of logic that doesn't quite make sense.
First you say:
n the Atheistic worldview someone could rape and murder you with no fear of anything bad happening to them if they are not caught by people.
This is a common statement within opposition to a subjective argument that is true, but holds true for an objective moral system as well. It just changes who catches you from other humans to whomever is the arbitrator of the moral system (in the Christian Mythos, God) so really this isn't a huge complaint against the moral system.
However you then go on to say:
If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if their honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism
Which is a big leap that jumbles up the grouping of Atheism and non-Christian, two computable, but not equal terms. I'll let it slide as a slip of the tongue though, but this:
. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose. People don't live like that though, we go to school and turn in papers on time so you can get the grade. With the Atheistic worldview, school doesn't matter; grades don't matter; education doesn't matter; nothing matters with that worldview.
is a statement that seems to leap from, "If you don't get caught nothing bad happens" to "It doesn't matter what you do" which are completely seperate ideas. Anyone goes to school to get the grade. Becoming an atheist doesn't suddenly make a grade cease to matter (and oh how I wished it did in chemistry class...). As for why someone wants good grades? The same as anyone that isn't an athiest, to hold a better position in society.
Then you start getting off topic:
Along with that, there is no answer for origins of life
Where is this from? Morality and the origin of life aren't really hugely connected (save in a religious world view) and there are several ideas that are offered for the origin of life. Simply because you wish they weren't true doesn't mean they aren't answers to the question. I don't believe your answer is true, does that mean you have no answer for the origin of life? Obviously not, so your position there is flawed.
If fact, they don't know if they themselves even exist. It's a sad worldview when you don't even know if you yourself exists.
Another odd leap. But in this case, it really applies to everyone. How do you know that you exists? Aside from empirical evidence that is also available to atheists?
You cannot say you are infallibly and inherently sure if 2+2=4 even
Bad example. 2+2=4 is a mathmatical proof meaning that it doesn't attempt to prove anything, merely represents that which is true. because it's definitionally true. In order for it to cease to be true, the definitions of two or four would have to change. Which feasibly it could, or have, but it doesn't really make a difference, we'd just have to change the names of the terms used, so that they represent that view again.
Christianity, on the other hand, is completely compatible with reality, relative to Radical Skepticism.
Save instances where one must assume events occuring that are not observable in reality.
said...
Dan +++
I will give it a shot. In the Atheistic worldview someone could rape and murder you with no fear of anything bad happening to them if they are not caught by people.
So, what happens if you are correct, and the Christain God exists. Perhaps I have this wrong, but what if the aforementioned rapist/murderer "finds Jesus" and asks to be saved on his/her deathbed? Are they not forgiven, thus negating any punishment?
Just a thought.
TRF
said...
Just to be more clear, I've dealt with Dan Marvin before at exchristian.net. He seems to get flustered when I ask him this(see my previous post) simple question.
He never failes to bring the stupid, as he does this time as well:
"Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally. It's the only option available to man if we are going to save the household of knowledge."
Can anyone see the level of bullshittery involved here?
Anyone?
Anyone?
said...
Yea, good times past Stronger Now, it was 10/27/2007 when you posed the very first questions to me:
Dan Marvin,
Are we to accept your version of a deity without question? Are we to accept faulty evidence and base our lives on it, ignoring it's flaws?
Are we to ignore our own experiences and accept someone elses' without credible evidence?
How gullible do you think we are?
Ah, presuppositional good times.
I do sadly remember you claiming. "I was "delivered" from my struggle BECAUSE I abandoned him.
I have missed our conversations and hope you could stop hating God for your abandonment.
said...
stronger now,
Yes, the evidence is credible. I don't believe "objective" evidence exists at all, except to God Himself, b/c all evidence is fact filtered thru a worldview.
And yes I know what the word "objective" means, and in a world where there are many choices of worldview available, just b/c I recognise one as objective and adopt it as my own doesn't make it subjective. If it's grounded in myself, then it's subjective. It depends on its grounding.
And who cares whether you think it's flawed? Offer an argument. And prove that, if the God of the Bible exists, a morality based on His character, expressed thru His commands, is not objective.
Cheers.
said...
Still can't answer that can you Dan?
Nope instead you try to redirect the attention to something else.
In this case it's a little late for your silly psychobabble.
I was speaking figuratively, dan. As any person can plainly see. You seem to have a problem with telling the difference between factual statements and figurative prose. As your belief in the biblegod attests to.
Accusing me of hate?
Isn't hate akin to killing someone, according to your mythology?
Why Dan...my how thou dost judgeth me?
Oh and by the way, since you cannot seem to keep from being a jerk to me and other atheist and exchristians I think it's time I started correcting errors on christian websites. You see untill now I've been comfortable commenting only on atheist sites as I didn't want to be pushy. But I see now one must fight fire with fire (hint to dan that was figurative), I think I'll take my show on the road.(again, dan, I'm not really in a show nor am I planning a cross country tour)
You can feel proud of yourself for prompting such a response, dan.
Also, nice that you didn't post a link so others wouldn't be able to see the quote in context. You agree context is important don't you?
Now...why do you believe what them wicked liars wrote?
said...
stronger now,
You're welcome to "correct" my site. Come on over. If your acumen is anywhere near as sharp as that which you've demonstrated here, it'll be great to have you.
why do you believe what them wicked liars wrote?
Is this some sort of inside joke? What are you referring to?
said...
Rho, Again, astonishingly supports a "might makes right" argument for his preferred moral "standard". At least he seems to.
"I recognise one as objective and adopt it as my own doesn't make it subjective."
The believers of every other god will agree that their god is their moral standard and objectivley real.
Great then, I recognize myself as the objective standard for my moral authority. Naner naner.
I have credible evidence for me. I recognize myself as being morally superior to your "standard" of morality.
Can you tell me why my standard isn't superior to yours?
I can tell that you seem very comfortable making claims of credibility. I disagree, obviously, so you stating as such seems, well, silly. I haven't seen said "evidence" but you apply the term "credible" and also describe it as not objective.
Credible subjective evidence. Nice. Obvously this should not do for any reasonable person.
Again, this has little to do with whether your adopted morality is the standard. The biblegod could be evil. Just because you believe him to be good doesn't make it so. You are useing what you prefer to call good as your moral "standard". Objectivity doesn't come in to play. You must decide for yourself whether you are worshipping an evil god or not. Is your standard objective? Hardly. You still chose according to your preference. You perfer the biblegod because you believe he is good. But evil men and gods are supported by people who believed they are good, as you yourself do with your beliefs of the biblegod.
Yes it's an inside joke. Sort of.
said...
Stronger Now,
Why Dan...my how thou dost judgeth me?
Who said it's wrong to judge?
But I see now one must fight fire with fire, I think I'll take my show on the road.
My blog rules are "Bring your "A" game. If you have one."
"Also, nice that you didn't post a link so others wouldn't be able to see the quote in context."
It's on my latest post.
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.
Are there such a thing as moral absolutes? here is a hint...Yes.
said...
1. Gus the Magic Cosmic Hippo is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2. Logic exists.
3. Therefore Gus the Magic Cosmic Hippo exists.
Cool!
Hey, here's another one.
1. God is the necessary precondition for making french fries (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2. French fries exist.
3. Therefore God exists.
And another one.
1. Gus the Magic Cosmic Hippo is the necessary precondition for God (by the impossibility of the contrary).
2. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossibility of the contrary).
3. Logic exists.
4. Therefore God exists.
5. Therefore Gus the Magic Cosmic Hippo exists.
I see how it works now. 1) Make up an imaginary friend. 2) Assert that something else could not exist without your imaginary friend. 3) Do a quickie syllogism. 4) Presto! "Proof!"
This religion stuff sure is easy!
Maybe next week we can start you on eating with a fork, Dan.
said...
Gee Dan, you seem like such an attention whore.
My "A" game?
Did you forget that I've already stumped you?
said...
Martin,
How precisely does your GtMCH provide the precondition for logic?
How do you know anything about GtMCH? What are GtMCH's characteristics?
Why should anyone believe in sthg that you grant you just made up? (Of course, Christians don't grant at all that we just made up TGOTB.) I'll appreciate your responses, and none of these are rhetorical questions, but I don't expect very good ones (given prior experience and your habit of avoiding the toughies).
said...
BTW, though I don't expect you to understand it (since you are pretty thick), I agree with your syllogism about french fries 100%.
said...
If my experience building networks has taught me anything, it's that the pinouts don't change the cable. Whether you're terminated as straight-through or cross-over, beneath the shielding, we're all the same twisted pairs.
- Jack
No comments:
Post a Comment