mornelithe said:
ninetailschris said:
Mr Khan said:
outlawauron said:
badgenome said:
No, because it's Duck Dynasty not Dick Dynasty. |
That would certainly reverse the sides which everyone just changing the for and against.
|
Except that gays are not necessarily hateful, homophobes are.
|
If you define everyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality as homophobe then your point is necessarily wrong because there is no proof to show. There are many people who don't agree yet haven't been hateful or anything close to it.
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1
I suggest everyone actual read the article to see what he actually said.
|
Maybe I'm wrong here, but it didn't seem to me like he was saying everyone who disagreed with homosexuality were homophobes. Those who arbitrarily damn an entire segment of the population based upon a 2000+ year old fantasy novel however, are.
For example, I'm not a homosexual, but I don't even consider that any love I feel is more 'pure' than theirs, and there's simply no empirical evidence to suggest that what they're doing is wrong in any way shape or form. They can still retain the services of a surrogate to have children (and guess what, so do some religious folks, just so they don't have to go through the hardship of being pregnant).
|
"2000+ year old fantasy novel however, are."
First, that's your personal opinion and I highly doubt you studied anything on the bible when it comes to historical significance or reliability.
Secondly, your using the Appeal to Novelty fallacy which is an illogical argument. If we created a law in the current time to legalize killing would it therefor be good compared to the the law of "we shall not kill" back in 2000 years ago? Obviously, not. The fact is the founders even though not christian themselves (besides some) admitted that they created most if not all around the bible. Going as far to say divine rights which is a direct reference to bible as an atheist can't use divine rights because you are created by your own philosophy by nothing but chance and have no ulimate meaning to your existence.
"For example, I'm not a homosexual, but I don't even consider that any love I feel is more 'pure' than theirs, and there's simply no empirical evidence to suggest that what they're doing is wrong in any way shape or form. "
Interesting you use empirical evidence without realizing how it creates conflict with your own point. You use "I don't" which directly implies that you believe this is your subjective opinion. Therefor, from your own argument your own morality is "arbitrary" because it in itself can't be proved to be empirically proven to be correct. Not many times in philosophy where someone creates a knock-down argument for his own argument. So, the question becomes if your own morality is arbitrary by your own logic then what are you actually arguing?
