Apostrovich said:
"Moral" authority does not stem from religion, particularly not christianity. That leads only to intolerance. Cold logic is the only thing one can count on, and as such, the current psycholoanalytic community does not say that being gay is bad or wrong. Pedophilia, or, more fittingly, child molestation, is wrong and illegal because of detrimental effects on children. Look at most any murderer, serial killer, or generally people who suffer from many different brands of psychosis, and oftentimes you will find child abuse in their past, sexual or physical. THAT is why pedophilia is looked down on. Just because you don't like the thought of gay sex and think it's wrong does not make you right, regardless of which "moral authority" you cite. And I did not say stealing was right, as that hurts people financially, and even then, there are shades of gray. For example, is it wrong to steal 10 dollars from a billionaire? If you have no money and need food? Ah "intolerance", the new and only immorality. Moral authority can come from anywhere; it can come from government or religion. Depends on to whom it is given. My suggestion is that since we lost the moral authority God had in times past, our moral code has become a farce. Suggesting to someone who believes there is no God that it's wrong to do any given thing is useless, because they have abandoned the concept of wrong. So that society doesn't go haywire (because we do need some sort of moral standards to keep from degenerating into beasts), we tell that person and others like him that it's wrong because it's not fair for someone to do that to you. But is that really why it's wrong, or is that just enough of an excuse to get them to go along with it? So anything that I wouldn't want done to me is wrong? Is getting fired from my job for a ligitimate reason "wrong" simply because I didn't want it done to me? As you've said, wrong is in the eye of the beholder without a moral authority, so how could anything be wrong if any given person feels it's right? There has to exist a single moral code, or there's no reasonable defense against any... any type of behavior. That includes murder, even though you're keen on saying that's "wrong" when all it really is is "illegal" by the philosophy you've adopted. And yes, it is wrong to steal $10 from a billionaire by the moral authority I adhere to because by that standard stealing is wrong, but thank you for helping me make my point; for me stealing is stealing is stealing is wrong. But you say "Hey... it won't hurt him THAT much, he's a billionaire." See how your weak moral code based only on what "hurts" other people fails as you begin to interpret how MUCH it hurts them? Eh, that won't hurt them too much, it's not wrong. But taking $1000, oh THAT exact amount is what crosses the line. Or maybe more like... $10,000... or $10,500. He won't miss that. It's at this point you might realize you have no actual moral code to speak of.
Back on topic, if they want to get married, what does it matter to anyone else? If they want to have sex with each other, who cares? Just because it isn't "natural"? There have been gay people since the beginning of time. And it is already illegal to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. The only reason homosexuality is looked down upon is because christians, with their massive superiority complex, decided about 1500 years ago that anything to do with carnal pleasure was sinful, and since man on man or woman on woman has no biological purpose as far as procreation, they deemed it wrong and sinful, even more wrong and sinful than having sex with a woman just for pleasure. Basing modern law and morals on a 2000 year old book is nothing short of illegal anyway. Aside from my belief that marriage is defined by the uniting of a man and a woman, I am not proposing we kill gays or hurt them or anything. It's what they do that I claim is wrong; I don't hate the person. And yes, "Christians decided". Christians are the bad guys. Have you read the Bible? It is so full of love, you might not believe it. Jesus preached to the poor and healed the blind and congregated with the outcasts and prostitutes of society. He taught us to love them, to show them what is right. Any Christian that attacks, physically or verbally, a gay person is in fact not acting in Christian form towards that person. Remember Christians are humans; some of them call themselves Christians and then completely betray the teachings of the Bible. However, the *act* of homosexuality is wrong by God's standard, and since your standards are lacking to say the least, and because philosophically speaking there must be some overarching definition of right and wrong for either concept to exist in any real fashion AND because the Bible offers the best code (my opinion, you may say, and true as that is it doesn't make me wrong either) and is impossible to disprove... well, I'm betting the farm that that moral code is the one we're looking for here. And if you're suggesting that the Bible is a tool to control people, perhaps into paying tithes? Then I laugh, because you could fool plenty of people with a much simpler and/or less solid religious statement into paying you money. And if not for money, then for what manner of control over people. Oh no, an army of people loving their neighbor as themself, run! We're so afraid of such a peaceful book, it makes one wonder what we're really afraid of. And the age of the book only supports its validity. If a book was true 2000 years ago it doesn't become less true over time. That it's survived and more than that, thrived this long is a testament to its message.
Also, thinking that I must have no "morals" just because I think that people should have freedom of choice, expression, and religion does not make me a bad person. I don't kill people. Not because I think I'll go to hell if I do, but because I know that I wouldn't want anyone to kill me. I don't steal. Again, not out of fear of god/hell, but out of genuine empathy for other people. The ultimate good, to me, is doing good without thought of reward or punishment. Even a bad person can be made to do good under threats. That doesn't make him a good person. You're putting words in my mouth again. If I suggest that something is wrong, I am not also suggesting that a person can't choose to do wrong. I expect and want them to be free to choose, since (for someone believing in God) God gave us that right to choose. That may be the single most vital thing for you to eventually get from me here. I also am not suggesting you necessarily have no morals, but that your code is flawed for reasons previously outlined. I'm sure you're an alright guy and just as chill as anyone, believe me; but we're talking about more than that here. And if you think going to hell is the only reason the Bible gives for doing right, then you've been pretty misled. I don't refuse to kill people simply out of fear of going to hell anymore than the same could be said about you. It's the Bible that teaches us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, after all... Uh oh, a shread of Biblical teaching still existing in our society! Attack! Oh, and you say "empathy" ...inherent care for our fellows. Sounds like a sense of unconditional love... of good... What good does it do you to do good by someone else, after all? You "feel good"? Where is that coming from? There has to be some inherent sense of right, that it was just the right thing to do, and therefore there has to be an inherent sense of wrong. That's gotta be the 7th time I was able to make that point.
And I never said anything about proper or improper methods of sex. Having sex with someone who has not yet reached the level of maturity, whatever their age, where they can intelligently make their own decisions is detrimental to them. And thus, to me, wrong. Anything two people want to do with each other is fine by me. It's not like they're forcing me to watch. They can do their pets for all I care, so long as it doesn't escalate to animal cruelty.
Ah, I assumed you'd fill in a blank or two without me, but I'll explain. Maturity is not defined by age alone, though time ought to be expected to contribute to it. A 16 year old is quite intelligent, and if their parents have explained sex to them, they pretty much get the picture (in my opinion but possibly not in yours). But ultimately their decision to have sex is only illigitimate because you've *decided* it is, and hence has no credibility within your own philosophy of tolerance. And you ARE saying there are improper ways to have sex: you're suggesting that their sexual decisions could be "detrimental to them". If kids can make bad sexual decisions, so can adults. Hence, anyone's sexual decisions can be detrimental to them, which means there are improper sexual decisions which means there are improper ways to have sex. |
