Australia votes YES to same sex marriage

[CQmethodist]

We have same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and more. These would be assumed to be morally wrong in times past. They are debated or assumed to morally right now. It's as if our morals have declined in proportion to our increase in college graduates and living standards.

Or the older position was the immoral one, and our morals have improved as a society. You're showing that morals have changed, not that they have declined.

As the beneficiary of this change, I'm rather glad to live in at time when I can marry and build a life with the person I love, rather than in a time where I'd be forced to lie about who I am or risk exclusion or even death if I chose to be honest.

 

[HereIStand]

Or the older position was the immoral one, and our morals have improved as a society. You're showing that morals have changed, not that they have declined.

As the beneficiary of this change, I'm rather glad to live in at time when I can marry and build a life with the person I love, rather than in a time where I'd be forced to lie about who I am or risk exclusion or even death if I chose to be honest.

No one wants anyone to risk death for honesty. But change can be progressive in the sense of removing unjust restrictions or rationalizing to remove necessary ones.

 

[JackRT]

It's fine to be liberal on what's purely cultural, such voting being limited to male property owners. Certain moral standards though stand (or should stand) regardless of time and place.

It used to be considered entirely moral to practice slavery and to engage in colonial land seizure and genocide (AKA doctrine of discovery). It used to be considered moral for a man to discipline his wife and children by beating them. Marital rape although frowned upon was not immoral. Torturing and/or executing criminals is gradually coming to be regarded as immoral. Moral and ethical standards do change over time and are continuing to change as we gain new understandings of human nature and sexuality. I regard this as the influence of the Holy Spirit on humanity over time.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I hear that a lot. Can you explain what you mean or why you feel that morals in the West have crumbled compared to an era you're thinking about

Usually when I've asked, people seem to want to toss out the 1950's...

These pictures are all from the 1950's...

<Sarcasm>
...oh how I long for that more moral, simple, and ethical time in our past where Doctors endorsed tobacco products, we encouraged kids to be racists, and we gave our wives speed so that they could do the housework faster! Today is awful...what with all of those tobacco awareness programs, integrated schools, and women being allowed to work if they choose. No sir!...take me back to the 50's!
</Sarcasm>

I would say we're far more moral now than we were in "the good old days"

 

[CQmethodist]

No one wants anyone to risk death for honesty. But change can be progressive in the sense of removing unjust restrictions or rationalizing to remove necessary ones.

You realize that when you pine for the "good old days" of "morality" regarding LGBT people, you are pining for the days when people were forced to lie about their identity under a threat of violence or being ostracized, correct?

 

[HereIStand]

Usually when I've asked, people seem to want to toss out the 1950's...

These pictures are all from the 1950's...
...
<Sarcasm>
...oh how I long for that more moral, simple, and ethical time in our past where Doctors endorsed tobacco products, we encouraged kids to be racists, and we gave our wives speed so that they could do the housework faster! Today is awful...what with all of those tobacco awareness programs, integrated schools, and women being allowed to work if they choose. No sir!...take me back to the 50's!
</Sarcasm>

I would say we're far more moral now than we were in "the good old days"

Yeah, we've come so far since the bad old days of toxic masculinity,

 

[TLK Valentine]

Morals should be held in common, otherwise the morals of a society crumble, as they have in the West.

I can think of several places in the world where the "morals of a society" are held in common, and indeed, are strictly enforced by the local and national governments.

Hint: brush up on your Arabic.

 

[HereIStand]

You realize that when you pine for the "good old days" of "morality" regarding LGBT people, you are pining for the days when people were forced to lie about their identity under a threat of violence or being ostracized, correct?

Violence or threats are always bad. No one should pine for those.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No one wants anyone to risk death for honesty.

What people claim to want is often irrelevant in light of the entirely foreseeable consequences of the things they advocate for.

But change can be progressive in the sense of removing unjust restrictions or rationalizing to remove necessary ones.

Fair enough -- so what makes this a necessary restriction?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Violence or threats are always bad. No one should pine for those.

Nevertheless, if you want something done, you should first examine how your will would be enforced.

 

[HereIStand]

Fair enough -- so what makes this a necessary restriction?

The Bible. And our Jewish-Christian heritage.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Bible. And our Jewish-Christian heritage.

And what's that mean to the non-Jewish-Christians in the country?

 

[HereIStand]

And what's that mean to the non-Jewish-Christians in the country?

They can enjoy the benefits of living in a free society with morals.

 

[KCfromNC]

The women's suffrage movement has its roots in the Wesleyan Church, with Seneca Falls meeting. The participants were hardly liberals by modern standards.

Considering no "liberals by modern standards" existed anywhere at that time, I'm not seeing the relevance.

School integration continues to be opposed by elites, conservative and liberal alike.

Similar lack of relevance here.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They can enjoy the benefits of living in a free society with morals.

Just not their morals, correct?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They can enjoy the benefits of living in a free society with morals.

Actually, religious groups have done more to restrict freedoms in society, not add them.

I don't remember any instances where we've needed to get the SCOTUS involved in order to keep secularists from imposing their own beliefs on everyone else... I can however, point to numerous times in the past 50-75 years that we've needed to do that because certain religious folks were trying to use government a means for foisting their religious rules on everyone else.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah, we've come so far since the bad old days of toxic masculinity,

View attachment 212888


View attachment 212890

I would argue that I'd rather deal with the handful of beta males than deal with widespread segregationists, doctors telling people to smoke, and men drugging their wives so they do the housework faster.

(IE: while it may definitely be silly-looking, the ideas being conveyed in your pics are far less dangerous than the ones being conveyed in the pics I attached from the 1950's)

 

[Cearbhall]

Morals should be held in common, otherwise the morals of a society crumble,

I don't know anyone who can magically convince themselves that something which they think is immoral is suddenly moral. "Oh look, 51% voted for something. I guess we all have to have that belief in common now! Society will collapse if the 49% of us don't change our minds."

as they have in the West.

The West is more moral than it's ever been. You couldn't pay me enough to suffer through any era of Western history.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The country has taken many steps forward from its past. Our history will always be with us, but the county also has progressed. Every part of the world has ugly parts. So, if we are using past history as a gauge? No country does. (Shrugs)

Many of what you are stating happens the same way today in some of parts of the world.

Meaning most people never had morals. And forcing pretend morals down our throats. Won't stop people from pretending to be something. They're not.

 

[Halbhh]

Consider -- it does not matter what you believe about it, we should not expect to legislate personal morals from government.

Prohibition -- complete disaster: just enriched gangsters and increased corruption. Did nothing at all to stop drinking.

Modern War on Drugs -- exact same result: enriches gangsters, and increases corruption. Total disaster.

In the 1970s (and 80s also), the drug laws backfired -- making more people try out drugs, exactly because there were illicit.

Outcome --> Increased drug use.

Drug use in the U.S. is only reduced in spite of the laws by people being afraid of the health effects.

Real personal morals come from above, and that is the only solution, and not making a mere law from government.

If we outlawed adultery for instance, I'd expect the rate of adultery to increase.

If you really do care about other people -- if you actually care -- tell them about Christ Jesus.

All people need Him. You need Him as much as anyone.