ed: Not according to the Constitution, there is no federally guaranteed right to marry for heterosexuals and certainly not a right to the made up institution of gay marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution about love either.
ia: It looks like you're just fighting with yourself here. If you want to argue that straight people do not have a right to marry, go for it.
They dont have a right to marry. It is a privilege that is earned. The SCOTUS needs to stop making up rights that dont exist. Such as this one and the right to kill your unborn child. At the very least Congress should be ones making such laws, SCOTUS does violates the Constitution when it starts legislating such things.
↑
ed: No, His nature cannot change just like a leopard cannot change his spots. That is the nature of a leopard. The intrinsic nature of God is goodness so it cannot change
ia; You're really doing very badly at making a logical argument. You keep making these claims, and then when we say, "How do you know?" your argument comes down to "It just is!"
Look. You've already said that the foundation for objective morality is the nature of God Himself. Fine, you've chosen that branch of Euthyphro's Dilemma - God does not say things are good because they are good, things are good because God says they are. But in doing so, you have stepped into a logical trap you are now quite unable to get out of: if goodness is what God says it is, then God could say anything was good, and it would be.
I didnt say that goodness is what God says it is. He is goodness itself. And we have the ability to recognize it.
ia: I and others have pointed this out to you a number of times now. What if God declared that murder was good, or child abuse, or lying? Then it would be, because anything God says is good, is.
And your response to this is "God would never do that!" But this is an empty argument. Why wouldn't He? What is there to stop Him? You cannot say God would never do evil, because if He does it, it is good.
Your reply to this is to say "But God has said what is good and evil, and he would never change." But why not? If God says that change is good, that going back on your word is good, that saying something completely different to what you originally said is good, who are you to argue?
Don't you see, you're caught in a logical trap, with no means of escape.
No, God does not change and we learn He is good thru experience and the truthfulness of His word has been confirmed by science and history.
↑
ed: And we confirm His goodness when we have a relationship with Him so that our experience confirms that He is good just as He has claimed.
ia: Careful, there, Ed. You said that God's nature is what determines good. Now it looks like you're going back on your word, and saying that you determine what is good by looking at it. So how is it that you know what is good or not? Do you judge it for yourself? I imagine you will say it is some gift from God that allows you to discern good from evil; in which case, we are back to the same puzzle as before - who helped you to discern good from evil? Presumably, God, and we've already established that saying "Goodness is God's nature" is a meaningless statement.
God has created us with a moral conscience that is how we recognize good from evil, though it is distorted, but generally accurate.
↑
ed: How does God being the good render goodness meaningless? We have a written revelation of laws that reflect the nature of His goodness. That is the meaning of goodness which is based on His objective moral character, so there is no meaninglessness. We have the meaning right in front of us. Only if there is no moral God is morality meaningless because then it can mean anything as I demonstrated with your Webster definition of love, it fit Hitlers actions and feelings perfectly. Love becomes meaningless.
ia: Good being good does not render goodness meaningless.
But good is meaningless to atheists, because you dont have an objective standard for what is good. And you dont have objective propositional statements that explain what good is that reflect that objective standard which is God's objectively existing moral character.
ia: But God being the good means that anything God does is good. Therefore, if God were to do something bad, it would be good. Therefore, he would not have been doing something bad in the first place. He can't. You can't say "God would never do something bad," because if God were to do something bad, you would have to call it good.
No, personal beings dont go against their character, even you generally do not go against your character. Since His character is the good, He would not do or command something bad.
ia: "Ah," you say, but "His nature cannot change just like a leopard cannot change his spots. That is the nature of a leopard. The intrinsic nature of God is goodness so it cannot change."
So what you're saying is, it would be bad of God to change His intrinsic nature? But we've just agreed He cannot do bad. So if He were to change His intrinsic nature, then that would be a good act. Besides which, who says He is changing it? Perhaps He just lied to you about what goodness is. And if God lies, then that means lying is good, because anything God does is good.
No, just as you would not go against your character so also God would not.
↑
ed: No, that only a man and woman can unite two persons into a single reproductive unit thereby reinforcing their personhood. Homosexual behavior cannot do this.
So what? You keep saying this, and I keep wondering why you think it matters. Why should it matter if a loving couple are incapable of having babies?
Their personhood is reinforced irrespective if they can have babies, that is why gays cannot do it.
↑
ed: No, the union is not mystical it is biological.
ia: In that case: so what? Why do you think that matters?
Because biology and science matters, humanity cannot survive at its highest level of unity if it condones a gay "marriage" and behavior. It damages society, studies have confirmed this.
↑
ed: I have never said gay sex should be banned, only discouraged just like we discourage smoking and drinking and driving and for the same reasons, none of it is good for you. And we should also discourage promiscuous sex outside marriage because that is one of the main causes of STDs.
ia: You've never said gay sex should be banned, but you do think that gay marriage should be banned. Why banned, why not just discouraged? Not that this would be much better, but your logic is inconsistent.
Because there is no such thing as gay marriage, it cannot perform the functions that I have laid out in multiple other posts. I never said they cannot have their own ceremonies in their own churches. The government should just not recognize it for the many reasons I have stated.
ed: There was no hell on earth 30 years ago when homosexual behavior was not encouraged.
ia: I think you misread what I said. I said:
"Of course, there are very good reasons why the state doesn't do this, not least that it would be a monstrous violation of the rights of the individual. A violation you are only too happy to see happen, but only in the case of people you have a religious objection to - homosexuals.
As we're seen in this whole, long thread - follow your arguments logically, and they wind up refuting themselves, often by showing that what they would lead to is a hell on earth."
And this is perfectly true. You think that the state should act to ensure an optimum society. You say that families should have babies, and so homosexuals shouldn't marry, because they can't have babies.
But why stop there? If the state is actually concerned with families having more babies (it isn't, at least not enough to interfere with families' lives) and if you were actually concerned about gay marriage because it doesn't produce babies (and I doubt you are)...
Then you would both be recommending that all families unable to have babies should be forbidden from marrying. Which, of course, neither you nor the state is doing.
No, see my post above why heterosexual marriage even without children is superior because is reinforces personal union. Gay sex depersonalizes people engaging in it.
↑
ed: No, I never said any of that. But the government should especially encourage marriages that provide the optimum environment for the producing and raising of children, which is only heterosexual marriage. It should it encourage it for the continuing survival of the society itself. Sociological studies have shown that ones that condone homosexual behavior do not flourish and survive.
ia: Accepting that, for the moment, let me point out that this is not what you are saying. You are not saying that homosexual marriage should be discouraged, you are saying it should be banned.
Don't you think you should be honest, and just admit that your prejudice against homosexuals is entirely religious? It would save a lot of time.
No, as long as the government is not involved they can do what they want. They can have commitment ceremonies and wear wedding gowns and etc, just not involve the government.
ed: See above about the biological facts.
ia: The "above biological facts" are nothing more than homosexuals can't have babies together.
So what? Again, how is loving gay sex in any way a depersonalising experience?
Because it doesnt unite persons biologically as I demonstrated earlier.
ed:
↑But there is no evidence that oppression of blacks and jews resulted in higher rates of mental and physical illnesses as it has with gays. Therefore, it is likely that higher rates of mental and physical illnesses are the results of engaging in homosexual behavior itself. Since the study that has shown this was conducted in a nation that is very open and accepting of gays.
ia: You're taking a very big logical leap there. The nation itself may have been very open and accepting of gays, compared to other nations, but that doesn't at all show that gays did not feel the victims of bigotry, either because of the world they lived in or the society they grew up in.
Also, there are huge amounts of evidence that gay people do experience appalling abuse, and even the ones who aren't abused suffer from the general, background level homophobia.
So did blacks and jews in the 30s thru the 60's and they did not have these rates and this magnitude of problems.
↑
ed: But your perception of him doing hateful things to his enemies is just based on your personal feelings, ie chemical reactions in your brain. Just like Hitlers feelings and behavior was just based on the chemical reactions in his brain. So ultimately your source of morality is identical, what rational basis do you have for condemning someone just because his brain chemicals make him act differently from you? How can condemn someone just because his chemicals are slightly different from yours?
ia: Did your mother never teach you the golden rule when you were growing up? Did she never say, when you bullied other children, "How would you like it if they did that to you?"
Morality can be a complicated subject. It can have great difficulties. It can be a complex thing to work out. But at root, it's simple enough. We're all humans. We all have empathy. We can all see that if we treat another person badly, they might treat us badly in return.
You didnt answer my question about judging someone just because evolution gave them different chemicals in their brain from you. But who says there is any thing special about humans? According to atheistic evolution there is nothing objectively special or intrinsically valuable about humans. So your morality is just based on irrational sentimental feelings for humans. Not based on anything rationally objective. There is no objective reason to treat humans any different from cockroaches.
↑
ed: No, He plainly says that one city would be judged more harshly on Judgement Day than another city because of their actions. Obviously since cities are made up of people it applies to people as well.
ia: I should hope so, too. It would be a terrible thing if all people were to be given the same terrible punishment. Why, that would be as unjust as saying that anyone who committed a crime, no matter how big or how small, should be sent to hell forever. Can you imagine?
Some sins are worse than crimes because they can have eternal consequences for multitudes of individuals. Something like speeding usually does not.