[quote]therajraj wrote:
My morality isn’t based on “pop-culture”
I can prove to you something is wrong by pointing to the outcome.
If someone has a ridiculous unsubstantiated personal belief such as eating broccoli is immoral, I can say - “hey broccoli is nutritious and promote good health of human beings, look at these facts.”[/quote]
This doesn’t show that eating broccoli is moral or immoral, either way.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.
CS[/quote]
The church is a large part of many people�??�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]
We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]
Why exactly should my morality, based on the bible be excluded from government, when your morality, based on pop-culture and self derived principals be allowed? Prove to me yours is right.[/quote]
My morality isn’t based on “pop-culture”
I can prove to you something is wrong by pointing to the outcome.
[/quote]
No you cant.
What you propose here is a version of consequentiaism (look it up) and that will not fly for oh so many reasons.
One of the more interesting reasons being: By what standard will you judge the consequences?
Let’s make this easier Theraj. Do you believe it’s morally permissible to authorize government to confiscate and redistribute wealth earned in lawful and consensual private transactions for, say, medical coverage for poor children and elderly? Heck, is it morally permissible to authorize government to do ANYTHING AT all, without the impossible 100% consensus of it’s citizenry? Get your microscope, your telescope, even a kaleidoscope (I made a funny!), out if you want. You won’t observe and measure the moral right or wrong of either.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.
CS[/quote]
The church is a large part of many people�??�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]
We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]
So, you’re going to ask every person at the voting booth to give an argument, based on reality, to be allowed to vote so?[/quote]
No Chris, I’m talking about in the forming public policy and laws.
[/quote]
I know, but some radicals are thinking of what I was speaking about, or maybe that is just on campus.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.
CS[/quote]
The church is a large part of many people�??�??�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]
We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]
Why exactly should my morality, based on the bible be excluded from government, when your morality, based on pop-culture and self derived principals be allowed? Prove to me yours is right.[/quote]
My morality isn’t based on “pop-culture”
I can prove to you something is wrong by pointing to the outcome.
[/quote]
No you cant.
What you propose here is a version of consequentiaism (look it up) and that will not fly for oh so many reasons.
One of the more interesting reasons being: By what standard will you judge the consequences?
[/quote]
I already explained in another thread you can build a complex moral system from very simple beginnings.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.
CS[/quote]
The church is a large part of many people�??�??�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]
We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]
Why exactly should my morality, based on the bible be excluded from government, when your morality, based on pop-culture and self derived principals be allowed? Prove to me yours is right.[/quote]
My morality isn’t based on “pop-culture”
[/quote]
Just a hypothetical.
That is exactly what most religions do. But again, this isn’t proof of anything. You are “proving” something is wrong, by labeling the outcome wrong. This is circular reasoning. It’s really poor logic. All it does is move the challenge to “prove the outcome is wrong”. You cannot prove something by asserting Something else which is lacking the same proof.
Ah, but what is good health? Is good health being happy and fulfilled? Is good health simply living a long time? Then you get into the reservations even by your own definition where green veggies can and will interfere with medication and decrease your specific version of health. I want my health to be living a happy life I enjoy, even if itâ??s short, and I donâ??t enjoy broccoli, so, by my definition it isnâ??t healthy.
What I’m getting at is that you can in fact scientifically quantify outcomes, but you cannot label any as good or bad without unprovable personal belief. Even something as basic as “health” in your example is entirely personal.
Yup, the same way Human rights were asserted.
There is no legal separation. Why do you want to add it? Why would you ban personal moral codes if they fall under a “religion” label, while insisting that yours are better because they you don’t label them religious?
[quote]
Are you a Catholic? If not, would you want your laws based on Catholicism and the Catholic Bible? You have to understand separation of church and state doesn’t just protect atheists but EVERYONE.[/quote]
I agree much more closely with the Catholic morality than that of the LGBT lobby. I should work to ban their morality from “interfering” with government.
What you don’t seem to understand is that we live in a representative constitutional democracy. Voting for the candidate that represents your personal convictions is what you are supposed to do. Catholics voting for people to try and get abortion outlawed (or the like) isn’t the church interfering in government, it’s called REPRESENTATION. And their beliefs deserve just as much representation as any other constituents.
edit: sorry, other posters beat me to most of these points.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s make this easier Theraj. Do you believe it’s morally permissible to authorize government to confiscate and redistribute wealth earned in lawful and consensual private transactions to, say, medical coverage for poor children and elderly? Heck, is it morally permissible to authorize government to do ANYTHING AT all, without the impossible 100% consensus of it’s citizenry? Get your microscope, your telescope, even a kaleidoscope (I made a funny!), out if you want. You won’t observe and measure the moral right or wrong of either. [/quote]
Moral grey areas exist, not everything is cut and dry.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s make this easier Theraj. Do you believe it’s morally permissible to authorize government to confiscate and redistribute wealth earned in lawful and consensual private transactions to, say, medical coverage for poor children and elderly? Heck, is it morally permissible to authorize government to do ANYTHING AT all, without the impossible 100% consensus of it’s citizenry? Get your microscope, your telescope, even a kaleidoscope (I made a funny!), out if you want. You won’t observe and measure the moral right or wrong of either. [/quote]
Moral grey areas exist, not everything is cut and dry.
[/quote]
Can you objectively prove that moral grey areas exist?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
The church should stay out of government and the government should stay out of the church.
CS[/quote]
The church is a large part of many people�??�??�??�?�¢??s basic beliefs on right and wrong, as such, it have every business influencing the government. Church should no more stay out of government than any other individual beliefs and convictions about anything. You are half right though.[/quote]
We live in a society filled with people who hold all sorts of beliefs on issues. You have the right to hold onto any personal beliefs you like, however your beliefs must be demonstrable as to why they are correct. Otherwise, why should a personal belief not based on reality be allowed to govern the laws of others?
[/quote]
Why exactly should my morality, based on the bible be excluded from government, when your morality, based on pop-culture and self derived principals be allowed? Prove to me yours is right.[/quote]
My morality isn’t based on “pop-culture”
I can prove to you something is wrong by pointing to the outcome.
[/quote]
No you cant.
What you propose here is a version of consequentiaism (look it up) and that will not fly for oh so many reasons.
One of the more interesting reasons being: By what standard will you judge the consequences?
[/quote]
I already explained in another thread you can build a complex moral system from very simple beginnings. [/quote]
You can, but those very simple beginnings are completely arbitrary.
And it practically alway leads to very, very interesting conclusions.
Google “repugnant conclusion” if you are interested in one branch of utilitarianism.
Google “Nazi euthanasia” if you are interested in “average utilitarianism” that sought to escape this “repugnant conclusion”.
I am sorry, but the underpinnings you take for granted are so embarrassingly less examined than the Christian ones that your best bet is to throw yourself in the arms of a Christian morality and hope for the best.
They never built Gulags or Concentration Camps?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Accident in the metaphysical sense. As in not pertaining to substance of their being, i.e. has no effect on their personhood.
What are my sources? Well, pick up an Aristotelean metaphysics book. Mostly only racists conclude the color of a man’s skin is not an accident to his being. Studying genetics shows that this is genetically true, as well.
However, assuming that the argument, “I was born this way.” Is true, and sense procreation is an end of human sexuality, I’d have to assume that homosexual’s substance is fundamentally different since they didn’t choose. If all is right, this brings into wonder if homosexuals are persons. Since they are because the actual substance of personhood is having an intellect and free will. So, I almost fully reject the notion that this is substantial part of a person, rather than an accident (one’s attraction, not one’s sexuality, one’s sexuality is based on one’s sex: cock or vagina). However, the marriage has a substance, the Church being an accident of the marriage speaks nothing of the substance of the Church, we have to figure out whether this marriage is a marriage. So, what is substantial to a marriage?
Well, two things are marriages end: the raising and protecting of biological children and the happiness of the parents through stability and other means. Homosexual unions remove this first substantial matter from the equation: procreative (I won’t argue about happiness, though I reject the notion that a homosexual union can fulfill the latter part as is meant), and they also remove the form: male and female. So, it lacks the substantial form and matter of a marriage. So, this is entirely not a marriage. However, can a Church reject this union of sorts?
Yes, because of two things: they are not rejecting based on accidents, being non-white, but because it is fundamentally not a marriage in their view point and would be morally hazardous to allow on their property. Second, forcing them goes against the first freedoms of man, i.e. freedom of religion, press, speech, &c.
So, no it is not the same as not allowing non-whites to get married in their Church.[/quote]
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
Then you have not looked enough because there is evidence that the brain of homosexual people is different in some key areas from a heterosexuals brain.
As is, as a sidenote, the brain of someone who insists that he was born into a body of the wrong sex.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.
Marriage is irrelevant because we are talking about the way someone is born which is long before marriage is an issue.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.
Marriage is irrelevant because we are talking about the way someone is born which is long before marriage is an issue.[/quote]
There is also a genetic link to becoming a serial killer. But having the gene doesn’t make you a killer. Killing people does.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.
Marriage is irrelevant because we are talking about the way someone is born which is long before marriage is an issue.[/quote]
There is also a genetic link to becoming a serial killer. But having the gene doesn’t make you a killer. Killing people does.[/quote]
Yes but killing is universally agreed upon as being wrong or at most bad for society.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.
Marriage is irrelevant because we are talking about the way someone is born which is long before marriage is an issue.[/quote]
There is also a genetic link to becoming a serial killer. But having the gene doesn’t make you a killer. Killing people does.[/quote]
Yes but killing is universally agreed upon as being wrong or at most bad for society.[/quote]
Bullshit. Not even mostly true.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
Then you have not looked enough because there is evidence that the brain of homosexual people is different in some key areas from a heterosexuals brain.
As is, as a sidenote, the brain of someone who insists that he was born into a body of the wrong sex. [/quote]
Please show me where I have not looked close enough.
Further, the one thing I know about these two things is that pre-1986 they were in the APA’s DSM.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.[/quote]
Never said sexuality is a choice. That’s pretty set in stone, or rather flesh. I pointed out that I was talking about attraction.
Yes, but sexuality is directly linked to marriage.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.
Marriage is irrelevant because we are talking about the way someone is born which is long before marriage is an issue.[/quote]
There is also a genetic link to becoming a serial killer. But having the gene doesn’t make you a killer. Killing people does.[/quote]
Yes but killing is universally agreed upon as being wrong or at most bad for society.[/quote]
Killing is not wrong or bad for society. Murder is. However, Cannibals would disagree with you, they’d think it was great. Very delicious.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I meant your sources on the fact that being gay is different than other genetic traits beyond a persons control. I don’t see anything above that covers that, marriage is irrelevant here.[/quote]
How is it irrelevant, when that is the subject of this thread?
Never said being SSA wasn’t genetic. Though I have never seen the evidence that it was genetic, or biological (I’ve only heard the biological claim). [/quote]
The part you originally replied to was regarding a difference in discrimination against race vs homosexuality. Your reply to that indicated there was a difference because race is by accident and sexuality is by choice. I’ve yet to hear the difference.[/quote]
Never said sexuality is a choice. That’s pretty set in stone, or rather flesh. I pointed out that I was talking about attraction.
Yes, but sexuality is directly linked to marriage. [/quote]
I meant attraction but you knew that, why are you avoiding the question? Difference between a persons race and their attraction?