By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Gay Rights - Why is this an issue?

appolose on 19 January 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

lol, sweet I love raptor Jesus.

on topic though.

I can see what you're saying. I think it was Kant that said all rationalism leads to nihilism (and then advocated abandoning rationalism in favor of revelation and faith), but I just think that's silly for any number of reasons. But for the intents of this discussion I will say that not all that don't agree with objective faith based dogma morality necessarily ascribe to nihilism either. Their rationalistic morality deems that liberty and protection are the moral zeitgeist to be followed rather than that of Christianity that uses biblical dogma that has evolved over time to be the moral zeitgeist to be followed.

It leads to a sort of reductio ad absurdum in the same way being anti-bigot does (being prejudiced against all prejudiced people). However a certain common sense kicks in when you believe in something like anti-bigotry even if it is a bizarre circular self damning concept. If the belief is "Liberty and protection for all" then that doesn't mean "Let's throw in pedophiles and goat sodomy too!" even though the reductio ad absurdum may lead to that end. The argument for gay marriage isn't an argument against moral objectivity as you seem to propose. It's an argument in favor of a different kind of objective morality that you personally don't ascribe too.

 

Perhaps, but I feel the contradiction is too strong a one to be ignored. 

Ha, I've never seen that raptor Jesus thing.  I didn't know that was a meme.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
The_vagabond7 on 19 January 2009
akuma587 said:
appolose said:

Oh, I'm not arguing against an objective morality (I believe in it), I'm saying that the criticisms made against relgious moral enforcement can be made for the nonreligious moral enforcement.  Perhaps even better.

Now, your assement of general mankind hearkens back to what I had been saying earlier; the majority is the "moral" decider (moral being, in this case, an arbitrary preference).  I would agree that most of mankind, at the moment, seems to want to preserve itself via rights and liberty, but, then again, that's just most of mankind.  On the other parts of humanity, this standard is forced, and that is where I see the hypocricy arise: the Christian is criticized for barring gay marriage, while the critic goes along and forbids whatever he prefers.  Hence my point that the standards of the nonreligous are those that have the most enforcers.  The reason why I brought up paedophilia was to show that this method thus allows it (I'm not (I think) using the slippery slope argument).  If you're going to hold paedophilia as wrong and always wrong, you're going to have to drop this methodology.

Incidentally, he's riding a raptor :)

 

No one is forcing anything on you if we allow gay people to get married.  We aren't trying to make you marry a gay person.  We aren't forcing your church to marry gay people, we aren't forcing you to invite gay couples to your house.  What are we forcing you to do?  Sacrifice your religious beliefs?  That's absurd, you are still entitled to not allow gay people to get married in your church and to believe that it is morally wrong for gay people to marry.  Allowing someone else to do something that has no tangible impact on your life is not depriving you of a right.  And even if that is a right, its not a right society has an interest in protecting.

By your same logic, we are infringing on people's rights who are offended by interracial marriages and who are racists when we make them eat in the same restaurant as those people.  What you are talking about is a right to determine how other people run their lives even though their choice has no tangible impact on your life other than a perceived impact.  Its different than us allowing people to murder others in society.  That can tangibly impact your life.  Gay marriage will only impact your life if you allow it to.  Its like a person being offended by interracial couples eating in a restaurant.

The right you are discussing is a right that society has no interest in protecting, since it conflicts with another person's right to live life in a way they choose when that choice does not impact society in a negative way.  You can argue that allowing gay people to marry would impact people in a negative way, but that argument has about as much support for it as saying that allowing interracial marriage will have a negative impact on society.

Show me scientific studies or documented evidence that gay marriage has a negative impact on society, and then we can talk.  You aren't basing your reasons for being against gay marriage on anything tangible or anything empirical.  Without hard evidence that it will impact society in a negative way (pretty easy to do with something like allowing murder), then your argument is weak at best.

Well the problem with this (and I don't want to speak for apolose here, and can interject on his own behalf), but I believe it's because it's coming from two different moral zeitgeists.

Now the one you Akuma are coming from is the one a large portion of civilization is moving towards. The idea of liberty and protection for all. People have the right to do as they please as long as they don't do so at the expense of the rights of other living things.

Now the moral zeitgeist that Apolose with the Jesus on a raptor one may be coming from, or how about I remove him from this so as not to offend a fellow with Jesus riding a raptor in his avatar. The religiously devout christian sector that fights this tooth and nail is coming from the moral zeitgeist that liberty and protection are not gauranteed for all. If it goes against the biblical dogma it must be stamped out. So saying "it doesn't hurt you" is really irrelevant in such a discussion. It hurts "god". And so it's a matter of banging one's head up against a wall since you're speaking two different languages.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

The_vagabond7 on 19 January 2009
appolose said:
The_vagabond7 said:

lol, sweet I love raptor Jesus.

on topic though.

I can see what you're saying. I think it was Kant that said all rationalism leads to nihilism (and then advocated abandoning rationalism in favor of revelation and faith), but I just think that's silly for any number of reasons. But for the intents of this discussion I will say that not all that don't agree with objective faith based dogma morality necessarily ascribe to nihilism either. Their rationalistic morality deems that liberty and protection are the moral zeitgeist to be followed rather than that of Christianity that uses biblical dogma that has evolved over time to be the moral zeitgeist to be followed.

It leads to a sort of reductio ad absurdum in the same way being anti-bigot does (being prejudiced against all prejudiced people). However a certain common sense kicks in when you believe in something like anti-bigotry even if it is a bizarre circular self damning concept. If the belief is "Liberty and protection for all" then that doesn't mean "Let's throw in pedophiles and goat sodomy too!" even though the reductio ad absurdum may lead to that end. The argument for gay marriage isn't an argument against moral objectivity as you seem to propose. It's an argument in favor of a different kind of objective morality that you personally don't ascribe too.

 

Perhaps, but I feel the contradiction is too strong a one to be ignored. 

Ha, I've never seen that raptor Jesus thing.  I didn't know that was a meme.

In such a situation where there appears to be a logical contradiction I appeal to a more pragmatic outlook rather than a rationalistic one. Realistically what is the result given the existing constructs? Even if the reductio ad absurdum leads to goat sex, realistically speaking a society that is governing by the moral zeitgeist of "liberty and protection for all" isn't going to institutionalize pedophelia for reasons that have been gone over too many times to count.

Also don't mess with raptor Jesus, he will eat your babyz LUZL!!!1!



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

appolose on 19 January 2009
akuma587 said:

No one is forcing anything on you if we allow gay people to get married.  We aren't trying to make you marry a gay person.  We aren't forcing your church to marry gay people, we aren't forcing you to invite gay couples to your house.  What are we forcing you to do?  Sacrifice your religious beliefs?  That's absurd, you are still entitled to not allow gay people to get married in your church and to believe that it is morally wrong for gay people to marry.  Allowing someone else to do something that has no tangible impact on your life is not depriving you of a right.  And even if that is a right, its not a right society has an interest in protecting.

By your same logic, we are infringing on people's rights who are offended by interracial marriages and who are racists when we make them eat in the same restaurant as those people.  What you are talking about is a right to determine how other people run their lives even though their choice has no tangible impact on your life other than a perceived impact.  Its different than us allowing people to murder others in society.  That can tangibly impact your life.  Gay marriage will only impact your life if you allow it to.  Its like a person being offended by interracial couples eating in a restaurant.

The right you are discussing is a right that society has no interest in protecting, since it conflicts with another person's right to live life in a way they choose when that choice does not impact society in a negative way.  You can argue that allowing gay people to marry would impact people in a negative way, but that argument has about as much support for it as saying that allowing interracial marriage will have a negative impact on society.

Show me scientific studies or documented evidence that gay marriage has a negative impact on society, and then we can talk.  You aren't basing your reasons for being against gay marriage on anything tangible or anything empirical.  Without hard evidence that it will impact society in a negative way (pretty easy to do with something like allowing murder), then your argument is weak at best.

But this is all based on the fact you think certain impacts resultant of actions are inherently wrong; forcing someone not to murder is the same as forcing no gay marriage; you don't like it, therefore you stop it.  Can you tell me why you think that murdering another human being has consequences that are inherently wrong?  If not, then you've become what you've accused.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
The_vagabond7 on 19 January 2009

Now see what you did Akuma? I had disarmed such silly thinking to a mere "Perhaps but I feel differently" and then you just pulled the cord and started the engine back up.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
appolose on 19 January 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
appolose said:
The_vagabond7 said:

lol, sweet I love raptor Jesus.

on topic though.

I can see what you're saying. I think it was Kant that said all rationalism leads to nihilism (and then advocated abandoning rationalism in favor of revelation and faith), but I just think that's silly for any number of reasons. But for the intents of this discussion I will say that not all that don't agree with objective faith based dogma morality necessarily ascribe to nihilism either. Their rationalistic morality deems that liberty and protection are the moral zeitgeist to be followed rather than that of Christianity that uses biblical dogma that has evolved over time to be the moral zeitgeist to be followed.

It leads to a sort of reductio ad absurdum in the same way being anti-bigot does (being prejudiced against all prejudiced people). However a certain common sense kicks in when you believe in something like anti-bigotry even if it is a bizarre circular self damning concept. If the belief is "Liberty and protection for all" then that doesn't mean "Let's throw in pedophiles and goat sodomy too!" even though the reductio ad absurdum may lead to that end. The argument for gay marriage isn't an argument against moral objectivity as you seem to propose. It's an argument in favor of a different kind of objective morality that you personally don't ascribe too.

 

Perhaps, but I feel the contradiction is too strong a one to be ignored. 

Ha, I've never seen that raptor Jesus thing.  I didn't know that was a meme.

In such a situation where there appears to be a logical contradiction I appeal to a more pragmatic outlook rather than a rationalistic one. Realistically what is the result given the existing constructs? Even if the reductio ad absurdum leads to goat sex, realistically speaking a society that is governing by the moral zeitgeist of "liberty and protection for all" isn't going to institutionalize pedophelia for reasons that have been gone over too many times to count.

Also don't mess with raptor Jesus, he will eat your babyz LUZL!!!1!

Yeah, I agree that it probably won't lead to paedophilia, but I find that whatever laws this society does set up, it puts them in the same boat as the gay-opposing Christian.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
EL_PATRAS on 19 January 2009

because the lord demandeth that those who unite in unnatural, unholy matrimony beeth struck down, and cast into the flaming bowels of hell from whence the evil doers came... or something like that. I wasn't really paying attention in that catechesis class :(



                                                                           

akuma587 on 19 January 2009
appolose said:

But this is all based on the fact you think certain impacts resultant of actions are inherently wrong; forcing someone not to murder is the same as forcing no gay marriage; you don't like it, therefore you stop it.  Can you tell me why you think that murdering another human being has consequences that are inherently wrong?  If not, then you've become what you've accused.

 

1) Murdering people hurts other people and infringes upon their right to live.

2) Allowing gay marriage does not hurt other people and does not infringe on any rights of other people that are worth protecting.

One infringes upon a right that is worth protecting because it involves your ability to exist at all.  The other right (assuming you can call it a right) is not worth protecting because no one is hurt by the action that the right inhibits and the right is based on a religious belief, which is not the basis for how a society should manage its laws.

Not to mention that outlawing murder is a rule that everyone must follow or else they will be punished.  Not everyone has to allow or even approve of gay marriages.  Churches are free to not perform them.  But society as a whole should allow them.  And outlawing gay marriage discriminates against gays.  Outlawing murder discriminates againsts murderers of course, but committing murder is in and of itself wrong in almost any moral system you can think of.  Whereas being gay is not.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

The_vagabond7 on 19 January 2009

See akuma, you're speaking a different language now. Your morality and his do not coincide, so when you say "This is why this is right" and it makes perfect sense to you, is complete nonsense to him.

He's a moral objectivist that believes that only christians can be morally objective, and so if you impose anything other than christianity on others you are a hypocrit because you think no moral objectivity exists and are imposing objective morality.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

appolose on 19 January 2009
akuma587 said:
appolose said:

But this is all based on the fact you think certain impacts resultant of actions are inherently wrong; forcing someone not to murder is the same as forcing no gay marriage; you don't like it, therefore you stop it.  Can you tell me why you think that murdering another human being has consequences that are inherently wrong?  If not, then you've become what you've accused.

 

1) Murdering people hurts other people and infringes upon their right to live.

2) Allowing gay marriage does not hurt other people and does not infringe on any rights of other people that are worth protecting.

One infringes upon a right that is worth protecting because it involves your ability to exist at all.  The other right (assuming you can call it a right) is not worth protecting because no one is hurt by the action that the right inhibits and the right is based on a religious belief, which is not the basis for how a society should manage its laws.

Not to mention that outlawing murder is a rule that everyone must follow or else they will be punished.  Not everyone has to allow or even approve of gay marriages.  Churches are free to not perform them.  But society as a whole should allow them.  And outlawing gay marriage discriminates against gays.  Outlawing murder discriminates againsts murderers of course, but committing murder is in and of itself wrong in almost any moral system you can think of.  Whereas being gay is not.

 

1. And why is that wrong?  Of course, it is wrong in a lot of religions, but, as you pointed out, it "discriminates" against the murderers.  To justifiy you have to see it is wrong in and of itself, which is an assertion of moral values, which is what the Christian is doing with homosexuality.

@vagabond

Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding.  I'm not saying he's wrong because I'm right, or because there is no objective moral system; I'm saying he's wrong because he's contradicting himself

 

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz