Assuming that the US isn't a Theocracy...

[nvxplorer]

Perhaps I missed something.
I thought the OP was discussing the U.S.

You do realize that when someone references a viewpoint, it is compared or contrasted with the whole in a Democracy, don't you?

Okie dokie!

Maybe I'm the one missing something. I'm accustomed to evaluating arguments on their merits. I wasn't aware that debate must be "compared or contrasted with the whole in a [d]emocracy" (whatever on earth that means! ).

Your post claimed something untrue, but it is understandable seeing as you limited your observations to only one of my posts mirroring a response to a post making an assertion.

You bet'cha!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Okie dokie!

Maybe I'm the one missing something. I'm accustomed to evaluating arguments on their merits. I wasn't aware that debate must be "compared or contrasted with the whole in a [d]emocracy" (whatever on earth that means! ).

OK, perhaps I should have worded that differently. Let me try to articulate it again.

Even if I had expressed a view that either aligned with a majority (in this case, it most likely was) or a minority, attempting to claim that the expression is restricted to the individual only and ignoring that it is a component of a larger shared viewpoint would be in error.

You had posted this:

"The only reason you've given is that you consider homosexuality to be immoral."

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29084526&postcount=26

Now I'm pretty sure that I've made a few general statements, more than one post and I did not restrict myself to "this is how I demand the world runs" throughout the thread.
So, I corrected the claim that involved me.

You bet'cha!

I hope I articulated it better this time.

 

[Belk]

Perhaps you might wish to argue against what I said and not your strawman.
I made no such reference about a right to not be offended, I was referring to forced endorsement. There is a difference, just like there is a difference between representation and dictatorship.

I hope you don't mind me cutting out the rest of your response but this is the area I was interested in. What I am understanding from this statement is that you believe if marriage is allowed between people of the same sex this is indirectly forcing you to endorse it. Is that correct?

 

[TracerBullet]

Perhaps if I had said that, your reference would have relevance.
But I didn't.
The request was socratic questioning to point out the obvious fact that governments have definition for marriages and these claims that any condition where a group would not be included in such a marriage definition (i.e. marriage remaining undefined and fully inclusive) is one straight out of Utopian fantasy.

None of which countries the fact that the laws of other countries do not affect either the laws of this country or the immorality of discriminating against a minority.

Perhaps you mistaken me for one trying to advocate that Secularism equates good laws.

Quite the contrary…you only seem interested in secular laws when they are used to discriminate against minorities.

The OP doesn't ask for a "good" (subjective) secular reasoning. But thanks for pointing out that secular laws can exist, don't equate right, and don't require "good reasons". Kind of underlines that the request and value in Secularism in and of itself is sort of worthless.

Is your attack on the wording to the OP meant to be an excuse for the fact neither you nor anyone else has come up with a secular argument justifying prejudice and discrimination?

More of the same empty claims only to slander any and all groups not elevating same-gender coupling.

Elevate?

The statements were directed at and about those advocating and justifying hate and discrimination for a minority and those attempting denounce any who argue for equality and justice are being intolerant of the rights of those who choose to hate and inflict their hatred onto our great country.

Too bad your statements above about discrimination, hate, prejudice, etc. can't segregate those same statements from its obvious hypocrisy.

The real hypocrisy belongs to those who cry “what about my right to hate in God’s name”

You might want to re-read your submission of Two Wrongs fallacy and recognize that discrimination, hate, prejudice, and so on against any religious group not sharing the ideology exalting same-sex acts is convicted by that claim of "no difference." Not that I agree with your statements, simply that it is self-condemning.

see above

I suppose this is common enough when the ability to justify one ideology on its own merits fails and is left to use a non sequitur for legitimization and slur all opposition.

Yes that his what you are doing…good of you to admit it. Now that you have confessed your sin repent of it.

That IS what we so often see.
Pointing to a racial issue in a desire and behavior discussion only to follow with the anti-religion, anti-Christian, anti-whatever besmirching rhetoric.

hate is hate no matter who it is directed agaisnt.

 

[TracerBullet]

If you have read the thread, you would see that reasons have already been given. They just get denied or avoided like the plague.

Really?

Well lets see…so far we have

Discrimination is OK…as long as its popular because, as everyone knows, the majority always determines what is morally right and wrong.

And

Discrimination is valid because other countries do it.

Wow…some fantastic arguments there….

Some of the reasons have been given even by those that didn't realize or intend to give a secular reason.


You see one poster tried arguing against the yuck factor (or something like it) and yet didn't realize that if a society viewed an act distasteful, immoral, disgusting, etc. that same society has every right to have laws reflecting its morality, values, etc. as long as it wasn't contradicting more of the same from that society.

Society views prejudice as distasteful, immoral, disgusting…yet you are apparently still walking the streets …

In the Secularist advocacy, people seem to forget that morality is decided by the given society or a given standard valued by the society. So if it is a yuck reason, what alleged dictate rules that society is immoral for not embracing or promoting the yuck?

SO you are saying that in Canada, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, South Africa, Denmark, Belgium and a half dozen other countries/states/provinces same sex marriage is moral and if you were a resident of such a place you would not be justifying discrimination for gays and lesbians or advocating a change in the law to remove equality form homosexuals?

 

[Morcova]

Arguing against what wasn't asserted?

I guess as long as you are ignoring your own posts nobody is arguing against what you have asserted.

You said that people were voting for anti-gay amendments... I said, that's nice, the majority can't vote away the rights of the minority.

 

[RavenPoe]

Originally Posted by Morcova
The majority doesn't have the right to vote away the rights of the minority.

Arguing against what wasn't asserted?

It was asserted on page two by yourself. I interperet this to mean that because a bunch of people feel this way, then it is a reason to go along with their feelings. Morcova and I have both disagreed. If we have misinterpereted, please clarify.

I keep seeing that empty claim that some don't see or know of a totally religion-free reason. Yet at the same time, there is an ignoring of the fact that the citizens petitioning, voting on and passing an Amendment stating they collectively are willing to promote a specific model IS a secular reason.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Amd that your religion has no place in law-making, why should gay marriage be banned?

Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.

 

[joey444]

Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.

Different religions from what? I never said anything about one religion.

 

[TheMissus]

Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.

China. Yeah, there's a country we should model our personal freedoms off of. That's more of an argument for gay marriage than against it.

Besides, your entire argument is nothing more than the Bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Belk]

Maybe for the same reason that it is not recognized in Japan, India, China, etc, where they have different religions.

And that reason is...?

 

[Arnold_Philips]

And that reason is...?

KC reuses this old canard that because homosexuality is taboo in most cultures around the world, then that means it is a universal and thus Natural Law (or whatever) demonstrates it to be immoral and perverse.

 

[KCDAD]

KC reuses this old canard that because homosexuality is taboo in most cultures around the world, then that means it is a universal and thus Natural Law (or whatever) demonstrates it to be immoral and perverse.

Old Duck? Why would an entire society make something taboo? Hmmmmmmm. What "universal" taboos are there? Incest... Murder... Lying... Stealing... why would some include homosexuality, eating meat or going in public with your head or face uncovered? What would they have in common with the others?

 

[Pinp]

Old Duck? Why would an entire society make something taboo? Hmmmmmmm. What "universal" taboos are there? Incest... Murder... Lying... Stealing...

Those are harmful to society.

why would some include homosexuality, eating meat or going in public with your head or face uncovered? What would they have in common with the others?

Superstition and ignorance. And because at some point some ruler decided to assert his authority and see if he could make his subjects jump through the hoops. Old news.

 

[KCDAD]

Those are harmful to society.



Superstition and ignorance. And because at some point some ruler decided to assert his authority and see if he could make his subjects jump through the hoops. Old news.

Maybe murder and incest are superstitions and ignorance? Why should I accept your interpretation? I might think homosexuality is harmful.

 

[Pinp]

Maybe murder and incest are superstitions and ignorance? Why should I accept your interpretation? I might think homosexuality is harmful.

You might. But in order for me to buy that garbage you'd have to demonstrate how homosexuality is harmful. Moreover for a majority of a society to ban/forbid homosexuality you have to illustrate how homosexuality can harm ALL of society.

I think we can agree that anything which destroys society would be harmful.

Incest - increases the prevalence of genetic disorders and defects overall.

Murder - well obviously if everyone kills everyone else no one will be around to carry on the society.

Theft - steal enough from people and eventually they'll starve.

Homosexuality - hmmmm...there's nothing inheirently harmful about the activity itself infact gays find it quite pleasurable. Red Herring time: "well obviously if everyone where gay there would be no children and society would die out."

Just to get you started.

 

[gengwall]

You might. But in order for me to buy that garbage you'd have to demonstrate how homosexuality is harmful. Moreover for a majority of a society to ban/forbid homosexuality you have to illustrate how homosexuality can harm ALL of society.

I think we can agree that anything which destroys society would be harmful.

Incest - increases the prevalence of genetic disorders and defects overall.

Murder - well obviously if everyone kills everyone else no one will be around to carry on the society.

Theft - steal enough from people and eventually they'll starve.

Homosexuality - hmmmm...there's nothing inheirently harmful about the activity itself infact gays find it quite pleasurable. Red Herring time: "well obviously if everyone where gay there would be no children and society would die out."

Just to get you started.

It's more (or less?) than a "harmful" issue. How does homosexuality deprive you of your life, liberty, or property. All of the other crimes violate someone elses equal constitutional rights to those three things. Homosexuality in no way does. (I am actually not sure that private consensual incestuous acts between adults are illegal. Anyone have a statute that can be referred to? [EDIT - MN Statute 609.365 - Whoever has sexual intercourse with another nearer of kin to the actor than first cousin, computed by rules of the civil law, whether of the half or the whole blood, with knowledge of the relationship, is guilty of http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pu...=609.365&keyword_type=exact&keyword=incest#k1incesthttp://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pu...=609.365&keyword_type=exact&keyword=incest#k0 and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years. I guess it is illegal. Go figure.]
)

 

[joey444]

It's icky.

 

[gengwall]

It's icky.

I think we dealt with that argument earlier as well

 

[KCDAD]

Incest - increases the prevalence of genetic disorders and defects overall. It also increases the closeness and security of a family. Look at some of the Negev nomadic societies.

Murder - well obviously if everyone kills everyone else no one will be around to carry on the society.Don't have to kill them all, just the ones that threaten society and security and peace. Or the ones you don't like.

Theft - steal enough from people and eventually they'll starve.Encourages community ownership, interdependencec and a lack of value placed on things.

Homosexuality - hmmmm...there's nothing inheirently harmful about the activity itself infact gays find it quite pleasurable. Red Herring time: "well obviously if everyone where gay there would be no children and society would die out." Well if everyone did it society would cease to exist.... (that's for playing the what if everyone did the other "naughty" things.)

Just to get you started.

I have not yet begun to begin.