A Marriage Manifesto... Of Sorts

[The Grey Pilgrim]

Yeah, kind of makes ya mad when people do that for themselves, doesn't it?

Is that the best response you could think of? Take a sentence out of context like you might have had some great point to make?

Wow!, you really humiliated me....

 

[Zeo]

Scientists everywhere know that at conception is when a human is a person.

Which scientists? Last time I checked, this was an issue that was up in the air. If it's been suddenly settled, that's news to me. [Objective] source?

It is up to human reason to decide the good to be done and the evil to be avoided. By rejecting this morality you are by default saying that I must accept a morality that is opposite and equally imposing. You are then condoning that which you are condemning me for.

You cannot either say that there are no moral absolutes because that in itself is an absolute moral statement.

Ok...So it's up to my human reason to decide good vs evil? And this isn't moral relativity...how?

Again, opinion doesn't make that which is true false and that which is false true. Many people in Nazi Germany were of the opinion that sending Jews to be murdered in concentration camps was a valid way of restoring German identity. They were also of the opinion that they should be ruling Europe. Are you saying that America was hypocritical for asserting their opinion over theirs?

Ah, good old Godwin. Nothing is complete without a reference to the nazis, right? So, nazis, slavery, etc? What was that you were saying about strawmen?

I know how I feel about the Holocaust, and what I would have supported in that situation. Likewise, I know how I feel about gay marriage rights, and I am trying to fight for them as much as I can, just as I would have fought to stop the genocide.

You might say "aha! You see? Your moral relativism fails because you're trying to impose your beliefs on others!" Well, we're both doing that, aren't we? The nazis didn't shuffle their feet and say "gee, I guess you're right. We'll stop." The unsettling truth is that we all have beliefs, and they are all different. Whether this is an example of "moral relativism" speaks for itself. But the fact that I am "imposing" my beliefs on others by fighting bigotry just as you are imposing your beliefs on others by fighting for traditional Christian marriage does not make my (or your) position any less valid. We're both doing what we think is right.

You don't want rights, you want license. For something to be called a "right' it must be in accord with that which is good and true.

Which is determined by human reason, as you stated earlier. Right. My human reason determines what is good and what is evil, and in my reasoning gay rights is good. Moving on.

_________

I can't really argue with you about what you believe. You know what you believe, and there's nothing I can say to change that.

Bottom line: I don't agree with your worldview, or your supposed moral authority, which I would argue is a mere opinion as much as my beliefs are. We argue from our points as though they were absolute, but in the end, I can't convince you that homosexuality is natural and morally neutral, and you will never in a million years convince me that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals deserve to be treated as second class citizens.

So, I would suggest offering actual arguments that we can discuss, rather than your opinion that it's wrong and should therefore be prevented. What makes it wrong? Why do you think it should be prohibited? That would give us something to work with.

We can play this "you want to pick and choose your beliefs and that makes you wronger than me" game all day, but let's stop and try having an actual argument.

 

[The Grey Pilgrim]

Which scientists? Last time I checked, this was an issue that was up in the air. If it's been suddenly settled, that's news to me. [Objective] source?

This was an article taken from a Senate committee hearing on when life begins dated September 2008.

newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.music.artists.springsteen/2008-10/msg03620.html(this forum won't allow me to post links so you'll have to copy and paste)

We all know that death is when all biochemical processes cease in the body. If the baby isn't alive at conception, how do you explain the biochemical processes taking place? How do you explain the cell division and the embryo's development without it being alive?

Ah, good old Godwin. Nothing is complete without a reference to the nazis, right? So, nazis, slavery, etc? What was that you were saying about strawmen?

I know how I feel about the Holocaust, and what I would have supported in that situation. Likewise, I know how I feel about gay marriage rights, and I am trying to fight for them as much as I can, just as I would have fought to stop the genocide.

Again, you are missing the point of what I was trying to convey.

Naziism was approved by a democratic popular consensus, as was slavery.

Democratic consensus made neither of these objectively moral acts good, it only made them premissable under secular law. And because the natural moral law was violated by theses "laws" the result was the deaths of millions.

Human history has shown time and again that sexual immoralty breeds nothing but violence. Greece, Egypt, Rome, all fell not from without but from within. The "sexual revolution" of the 60's and 70's has brought forth the holocaust of almost 50 million babies through abortion.

Your logic is that people decide moral truths based on their point of view. I'm trying to tell you that moral truths exist outside of human influence and when they are violated by secular law bloodshed is the only result.

Ok...So it's up to my human reason to decide good vs evil? And this isn't moral relativity...how?

Which is determined by human reason, as you stated earlier. Right. My human reason determines what is good and what is evil, and in my reasoning gay rights is good. Moving on.

Let me rephrase this because I must not have been clear the first time.

Human beings can use their intellect and reason to find the good to be done and the evil to be avoided. The problem with fallen humanity is that it's intellect is so darkened by distrust, it's will is beset by weakness, it's heart hardened by anger and hatred, and it's ability to control it's passions diminished by it's own lustful habits, that humanity looses it's grip on that which is the essential truth and rather chooses those base desires that are objectively opposed to moral truths.

Human reason cannot make valid something that is objectively evil. Morally objective truths exist. These truths are transcendent and are above any attempts by man to subvert them. These natural laws are consummate and immutable, just as the laws of nature.

You may decide to protest the laws of gravity by claiming that they don't exist. But I doubt you'll jump off a roof to prove your claim.

According to your logic, human reason can also determine that killing gays is also a good-which it is not-and then proceed to use violent unprincipled assertion to enact his reasoning.

You can no more argue "gay rights" than a murderer can argue "killing rights" or a child molestor can argue his "right to a child".

 

[QuakerOats]

You can no more argue "gay rights" than a murderer can argue "killing rights" or a child molestor can argue his "right to a child".

I disagree. Pedophilia and murder have obvious negative effects, whereas homosexuality does not. Here in Canada, same-sex marriage has been legal for some time now, and we have thus far experienced little to none of the things those opposed claimed that we would. I believe said scare tactics are merely a front for fear, ignorance, and yes, even hate by some. You mention Greece, Rome, and Egypt as examples, looking for some ground for your claims, but I know my history; I know why Rome fell, and it was not due to homosexuality, or ultimately even your claim of 'sexual immorality.' (see Fall of Rome - Decline of the Roman Empire, and Decline of the Roman Empire).

 

[QuakerOats]

Accidental double post.