First let me be clear, I'm not referring to all Christians in my arguments. I'm only using Christianity as the basis of my argument, because it is the religion I have the most experience with. I believe a good person is a good person regardless of beliefs, and I consider anyone who tries to live by the Golden Rule, whether or not they believe in it as such, to be a good person. Most Christians, or just religious people in general, are good people and their faith gives them hope and comfort. I don't believe there is anything wrong with it, even though I don't believe in it, so who am I to try to take that away and force my beliefs on them?
Almost everything I've found in the Bible referring to government, especially in the New Testament, would seem to promote seperation of church and state ("Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Give unto God what is God's"), and that you should live as a Christian, yet there always seem to be evangelicals, and others, who would ignore these very clear messages and force people who don't share their beliefs to live like them. My biggest fear is that the United States can easily become a Christian Theocracy, something most of our enemies in the world already believe, due to an overwhelming majority of our troops being white evangelicals.
As a side note, part of this is to argue against the Christian opposition to Gay Marriage. In my point of view, the moment Christians allowed Marriage to become a legal institution, they lost the right to regulate all Marriages according to their point of view, but instead allowed it to become a government matter, devoid of religious implication. However, I want to keep this open to more general matters of introducing faith-based morality into law, when not everyone shares that faith.
Going from that, how much should those Christian or other religious values make their way into law? Is right of Christians to try to get their moral views legalized at all? Should our laws only prevent actions that would harm other people, or should there be a higher standard?
Obviously, some faith-based morality with always translate in law (I.E. Murder is wrong), I'm just curious as to where you draw the line, and why.
Anyway,
The argument is (not mine) that moral degradation IS harmful. You have to remember the mindset we are talking about here. A mindset that sends you to hell is harmful. Also having a society that feeds into that mindset is even more harmful.
The argument is that having gay marriage legal would be like having drugs legal. Sure, only the people doing the drugs would be harmed, but having people in the neighborhood talking about how cool drugs are and doing drugs in the open would make it easier for society as a whole to be corrupted. A society would fall into decadence. Homosexually in Rome is the reason the authors of the New Testament were against it, and Rome did fall.
That being said, I don't think gay marriage is like that at all, and I agree with the resent court rulings on the subject. Legal marriage should not be between a man and a woman, but between two adults. I don't feel this will have a corrupting effect on society as a whole because I don't think being gay is harmful or even something that can be chosen, so it would not be a "corrupting influence."
However, my conservative brother would say that this is just one step on a slippy slope. Some people, for example, are sexual attracted to nonhuman animals or to children. Again, often this is not something that's a choice on their part, should we be accepting of those people?
There is always a gray area. There is always a point to be argued and another perspective to be looked at. Some people chose religion as their lens. They look to the wisdom of the past to help them make choices about the future. I do not begrudge them this. Personally, I like looking to the future more than the past, but, again, in life their are no easy answers.
There is always more to consider and more angles to look at something from.
First let me be clear, I'm not referring to all Christians in my arguments. I'm only using Christianity as the basis of my argument, because it is the religion I have the most experience with. I believe a good person is a good person regardless of beliefs, and I consider anyone who tries to live by the Golden Rule, whether or not they believe in it as such, to be a good person. Most Christians, or just religious people in general, are good people and their faith gives them hope and comfort. I don't believe there is anything wrong with it, even though I don't believe in it, so who am I to try to take that away and force my beliefs on them?
First, what is this Golden Rule? Second, this perfect religion that only gives comfort and peace I often hear about doesn't exist. Every religion have their own dark sides and ridiculous dogmas, and that's where the problems start.
Almost everything I've found in the Bible referring to government, especially in the New Testament, would seem to promote seperation of church and state ("Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Give unto God what is God's"), and that you should live as a Christian, yet there always seem to be evangelicals, and others, who would ignore these very clear messages and force people who don't share their beliefs to live like them. My biggest fear is that the United States can easily become a Christian Theocracy, something most of our enemies in the world already believe, due to an overwhelming majority of our troops being white evangelicals.
If the US didn't become a theocracy 50 years ago, it's not about to become one now, so I'm not worried. Also a lot of evangelicals are fond of the passages where it's said that Jesus/God is the King of Kings
As a side note, part of this is to argue against the Christian opposition to Gay Marriage. In my point of view, the moment Christians allowed Marriage to become a legal institution, they lost the right to regulate all Marriages according to their point of view, but instead allowed it to become a government matter, devoid of religious implication. However, I want to keep this open to more general matters of introducing faith-based morality into law, when not everyone shares that faith.
Ok, let me say again that marriage is not an exclusively christian ritual. So they haven't lost the right to regulate all marriages because they never had it to begin with. So gays should be able to marry legally and have all the bells and whistle that come with it, same as a hetero marriage.
However, if a gay couple wants a true christian wedding, like it or not, they are going against the teachings of the church. At that point the government cannot force religions to change their beliefs.
Going from that, how much should those Christian or other religious values make their way into law? Is right of Christians to try to get their moral views legalized at all? Should our laws only prevent actions that would harm other people, or should there be a higher standard?
Obviously, some faith-based morality with always translate in law (I.E. Murder is wrong), I'm just curious as to where you draw the line, and why.
Well that's the tricky question at the heart of all those religious disputes isn't it?
Simply put, a law should never be made base on beliefs, only one reasoned lines of thought. However even that can be complex and full of pitfalls, so there's really no perfect answer yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
First, what is this Golden Rule? Second, this perfect religion that only gives comfort and peace I often hear about doesn't exist. Every religion have their own dark sides and ridiculous dogmas, and that's where the problems start.
I'll assume you're serious
Golden Rule = One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one's self
The Dark Side exists everywhere, from George Lucas movies, to religion, to how people drive. Further, it's often shades of gray.
If the US didn't become a theocracy 50 years ago, it's not about to become one now, so I'm not worried. Also a lot of evangelicals are fond of the passages where it's said that Jesus/God is the King of Kings
I don't think that the various religious factions could get enough support to truly take over. The closest they got was the effective take-over of the republican party during the GWB presidency.
Ok, let me say again that marriage is not an exclusively christian ritual. So they haven't lost the right to regulate all marriages because they never had it to begin with. So gays should be able to marry legally and have all the bells and whistle that come with it, same as a hetero marriage.
Exactly - that church can not marry gays all they want.
PS - gays will also have to deal with the dark side of marriage too. Divorce, child support, alimony, and wonky tax structures. However, everyone should have that opportunity to "marry" the person that they love.
However, if a gay couple wants a true christian wedding, like it or not, they are going against the teachings of the church. At that point the government cannot force religions to change their beliefs.
Well, separation of church and state. Makes sense.
Well that's the tricky question at the heart of all those religious disputes isn't it?
Simply put, a law should never be made base on beliefs, only one reasoned lines of thought. However even that can be complex and full of pitfalls, so there's really no perfect answer yet.
Laws have always had some basis in beliefs though - it just depends on what you mean by beliefs. If beliefs are "morals" we've got lots of laws around like that. Tons of them will never be enforced, but they're on the books.
Agree with you on the perfect answer. Even reasoned lines of thought can have vastly different results.
Let's take negligence law for example
pure negligence - You can recover if you get hurt based on someone else's negligence...even if you're a complete a utter moron. Like walking through a hole in a fence, walking through yellow construction tape, and falling into a manhole
contributory negligence - if you're negligent as well, you can't recover at all. So, for example, if you hit me and I get paralyzed...but if I was driving 15 miles over the speed limit...tough luck.
comparative negligence - intermediate regime where "blame" is allocated. So, for example, it's 30% your fault for speeding, but 70% my fault for pulling out in front of you.
Speaking as a Christian, I still believe that morality based in religion should not be a measuring stick on what the law is drawn on. The law needs to consider things in objectivity, fairness to all peoples and in just execution.
Religious morality can and does come into conflict with this, as people attempt to put forth their religious doctrine and use it as a political position to prevent basic human rights from being fulfilled. I.E., the institution of gay marriage.
It's been a longstanding travesty of justice that homosexuals have been prevented from having the same rights as married straight couples. But because a few misinformed, loud mouthed ignorant sects that like to call themselves "Christian" they hold some sort of psychotic sway over political process.
Same as intolerance towards political candidacy. The very idea that Barack Obama could of at one point been even associated with Muslims causes these so-called "Christians" to foam at the mouth in fear and rage. Which is absolutely ridiculous and has no place in politics, let alone the law.
And yet they hold an incredible amount of sway over what is allowed and what is not allowed simply because we assume that religion is required to have morality and compassion.
This is a false assumption. As beliefs are just that, beliefs. Personal and communal. Our mission is not to oppress minorities unless they accept God as their savior. We are supposed to consider ourselves as lesser than our neighbors. Not superior, morally or otherwise.
So although there are some basic premises that religious morality has to offer to democratic law, all in all democratic law should be decided through political objectivity. Should. Sadly, it isn't, and isn't going any signs of changing.
Why can't a person have sex with their 18 year offspring? Are they not both adults? Morals. Where do those morals come from? Religion.
Religion is fundemental to the development of society. Thusly, laws were/are based on religous ideals.
Why is it illegal to perjure yourself? Religion (thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor)
You know what is not illegal? Coveting. (thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife)
You are putting a far too-heavy emphasis on religion here. Morality exists separate from religion and in fact far more than likely predates religion (I say this because punishment for stealing and/or not sharing food has been observed in other primates). It's an evolutionary trait that helps social animals such as humans form a functional society and exists as a psychological concept, not a religious one.
I find it funny how religions positive impact on society are brushed off. I'll just disagree and leave it at that.
It's a chicken vs egg thing. Did religion shape society or did society shape religion?
You used the perjury example as something religion brought to the justice system. One can easily argue that perjury was already treated as a societal wrong before it was made part of a religious dogma. ie if it was not a commandment, the Hebrews would still have had laws against it.
However, my conservative brother would say that this is just one step on a slippy slope. Some people, for example, are sexual attracted to nonhuman animals or to children. Again, often this is not something that's a choice on their part, should we be accepting of those people?
This is a common, and stupid, argument made by people against Gay Marraige. I would disagree with your brother because of one major point, which is that animals and children aren't consenting adults. I trust I don't need to argue that point further?
The Golden Rule has many different versions due to translations, but essential it means that you should do to others what you would want them to do to you.
Second, this perfect religion that only gives comfort and peace I often hear about doesn't exist. Every religion have their own dark sides and ridiculous dogmas, and that's where the problems start.
I didn't say it ONLY gives comfort and peace, just that to many people it is a source of those.
If the US didn't become a theocracy 50 years ago, it's not about to become one now, so I'm not worried. Also a lot of evangelicals are fond of the passages where it's said that Jesus/God is the King of Kings
50 years ago we WERE practically a protestant christian theocracy. Read up on how big a deal it was when a Catholic was elected president.
Ok, let me say again that marriage is not an exclusively christian ritual. So they haven't lost the right to regulate all marriages because they never had it to begin with. So gays should be able to marry legally and have all the bells and whistle that come with it, same as a hetero marriage.
So what you are saying is that you disagree with one religious group intituting Marriage by their definition above all others?
However, if a gay couple wants a true christian wedding, like it or not, they are going against the teachings of the church. At that point the government cannot force religions to change their beliefs.
True. Gay marriage doesn't mean the Catholic Church has to start marrying them, just that they CAN get married legally. Remember, Christians aren't LEGALLY married unless they get their marriage license from the court and have a state sanctioned person perform the ceremony. The christian wedding is just topping on the cake.
Apologies, accounts vary depending on what they define as evangelical. Let me rephrase by saying many, but I can't provide proof because some studies say 40% and some say up to 60%.
Please provide ANY references to historic events in which a religious institution loses "rights" to say what should be marriage and what shouldn't be because a government recognized the marriage.
I think you missed the point. Churches can, and should, have their own standards for marriage, but from a strictly legal standpoint the legal partnership that is marriage can't be defined by those religious standards.
From your view, what about the fights in 1800's over what is/is not a marriage? From mutliple wives to multiple husbands. From group marriages to whole towns being one married body. What about marriage outside the species? What about marriage past death? Or inheritance of marriage (meaning, if my brother dies, I get his wife in order to have children for him) like described in the O.T. Bible?
Marriage of same-sex couples is new to society. The idea runs counter to most citizens view of what a marriage should/should not be. Marriage problems already exist (what about 80 year olds marrying money grubbing Blond Bimbos in their 20's?).
See my above definition. Marriage outside the species is a ridiculous bit of reasoning, see what I discussed with Taylor. Consenting adults is the prevailing term for those legally able to enter into a marriage.
My personal opinion is that the state(s) should create a receprical Marriatal Power of Attorney that grants legal protection status on the two members. Thusly, the person with the POA has the right to make decisions for the other, go into debt, right to inheiret, etc. As part of the POA, a judge must determine who gets what when one party wants out of the POA (ie. equal to a No-fault divorce). This ends the whole debate on "marriage" and provides the legal recourse and protection. In the future, these MPOA will be done away with once soceity accepts them as a normal part of existance in America.
Power of attorney is not the same thing. Marriage is a social institution, not exclusively a religious one. Since I'm not Christian, are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to get married?
Why can't a person have sex with their 18 year offspring? Are they not both adults? Morals. Where do those morals come from? Religion.
This is an interesting argument. They ARE both consenting adults. While I find it distasteful, I would allow it if a psychologist determines that it is a truly consentual relationship. However, almost all cases of incest aren't amongst consentual adults, they amount to rape through abuse of power by one of the parental figures.
Religion is fundemental to the development of society. Thusly, laws were/are based on religous ideals.
Religion is not fundamental, morality is. The two can be mutually exclusive. Religion is a by-product that puts morality in context, and gives consequences after the mortal life span.
People are going to vote based on what they believe to be right. Religious people believe things are right for religious reasons. As a free society, it is not our right to deny these people their freedom of conscience because we don't always like what their conscience says. Rather, it is our responsibility to exercise our freedom of speech, to exchange ideas and thereby build a consensus of what is really right.
Why can't a person have sex with their 18 year offspring? Are they not both adults? Morals. Where do those morals come from? Religion.
Religion is fundemental to the development of society. Thusly, laws were/are based on religous ideals.
Why is it illegal to perjure yourself? Religion (thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor)
You know what is not illegal? Coveting. (thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife)
I think soceity has seperated sin from crime pretty well.
I find it funny how religions positive impact on society are brushed off.
For the theory that religion is the source of morality, at least, it's not so much "brushed off" as "examined in detail and then rejected". Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil is a good book to take a look at, but you can start with Franz de Waal's excellent recent article in the New York Times.
Rome didn't fall so much as fade away. This was due to overreach of their grasp on territory and the descent into pure empire from a republic.
That's an arguable point. One could say they "faded away" because they fell into decadence.
Certainly, it was strong for a while while it was a pure empire.
This is a common, and stupid, argument made by people against Gay Marraige. I would disagree with your brother because of one major point, which is that animals and children aren't consenting adults. I trust I don't need to argue that point further?
Don't call my brother's argument 'stupid.' He is a smart fellow.
I am more than happy to debate his side of the argument even though I don't believe it in my heart:
You seem to be very up in arms about just accepting these bestiality people and pedophiles, yet many of them make the same arguments as homosexuals. Certainly it would be possible for those kinds of people to find acceptance with society without harming children or animals. You could make pornography for those kind of people more readily available and what not. But, we all agree THAT would be a bad idea, correct? Why? Well, while some forms of acceptance and pornography might not be harmful to children and animals, it would have a corrupting effect, much like people argue legalizing drugs would. By encouraging bestiality and pedophilia we would be making it easier for the detrimental behavior to occur. The slippy slope is NOT always a fallacy if one does, in fact, enable the other.
Also on topic,
Would you, for example, be in favor of a Polygamist marriage between consenting adults? Or between father and daughter, assuming both are adults? Why or Why not?
Laws are abstract principles to litigate disputes and to engineer decorum, civility, with the hope of morality. With that said, laws as abstract constructs are inherently inefficient to deal with the complexities of morality. This is why in part philosophy and religion exist to extort the "murky areas" of human existence to serve as a guide post in how to live.
Religion in form for the most part is compatible as religions adapt to our culture and our culture adapts to those new religions without much problem. Theocracies in the European tradition just do not last long here past two generations except in very small territories such as the Anabaptist communes scattered around. The rest of the theocracies or what can approach a theocracy would be tribal lands, and for the most part they don't really matter much in the day to day sense unless if you live on a reservation.
Even Iran is showing signs of tensions with their own theocracy with Ahmadinejad wanting more power for the Iraqi War generation in the Revolutionary Guard. The mullahs days are numbered as a real power broker, the next revolution in Iran is a secular one. The question is whether democrats win or the autocrats do. Even then, the Iranians were built off of a sense of Plato's Republic more so or equal to religious law. There is a lot of secularity to governments, and at best a theocracy is a partnership than a true theocracy. The only true theocracy in the world I would argue is the Vatican as a nation-state.
Considering American culture. Christianity wants to legislate morality and pop up a few monuments here and there. The Blue Laws were as close as we got to that, and it was the Protestant sects that wanted them where as the Catholics were the more liberal that actually fought the Blue Laws. So even within religion, there's competition to divvy up what should be legislated and what not to be legislated.
This is why I go back to culture, demographics, economics, and sociology. There really is not a singular explanation to why certain things are the way they are and this includes our current laws. Either way, it is the belief structure that is highly important. Whether the zealotry is with Marxists or Christians or whatever pops up, the fundamental point is that a fundamentalist will always exist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
That's an arguable point. One could say they "faded away" because they fell into decadence.
Certainly, it was strong for a while while it was a pure empire.
I'll give you that they certainly became gluttonous, but it was internal complacency and real, external threats that destroyed them in the end. They fragmented and eventually gave way to local rulers again in the places they had conquered.
You seem to be very up in arms about just accepting these bestiality people and pedophiles, yet many of them make the same arguments as homosexuals.
Thank you for pointing out the thing I didn't quote first. I'm not accepting of bestiality and pedophiles, because the object of their sexual desire isn't another consenting adult, and what they want to do amounts to rape in the end.
Would you, for example, be in favor of a Polygamist marriage between consenting adults? Or between father and daughter, assuming both are adults? Why not?
It is the same for the incestuous relationship Colonel Coo brought up, even though those the parent and child are adults, it is still rape because ultimately their is an authoritarian relationship between the two. Let me ask you something - if you accidently slept with a close relative you didn't know existed (say you father had another daughter with another woman, and you just happened to meet and were married), are you still going to hell? It is a different kind of scenario entirely. And BTW - the bible contains numerous incestuous and polygamist relationships, so that isn't really a valid argument from the Christian side. I know you didn't argue it, but I thought it worth mentioning. Many christian sects justify polygamy with the Bible, so how do YOU justify NOT allowing Polygamy?
You seem to be very up in arms about just accepting these bestiality people and pedophiles, yet many of them make the same arguments as homosexuals. Certainly it would be possible for those kinds of people to find acceptance with society without harming children or animals. You could make pornography for those kind of people more readily available and what not. But, we all agree THAT would be a bad idea, correct? Why? Well, while some forms of acceptance and pornography might not be harmful to children and animals, it would have a corrupting effect, much like people argue legalizing drugs would. By encouraging bestiality and pedophilia we would be making it easier for the detrimental behavior to occur. The slippy slope is NOT always a fallacy if one does, in fact, enable the other.
Also on topic,
Would you, for example, be in favor of a Polygamist marriage between consenting adults? Or between father and daughter, assuming both are adults? Why or Why not?
Frankly I really do not have an issue with bestiality beyond the cruelty to animals aspect of it. If it's legal to murder animals then raping them is not really an issue.
On the pedophilia issue I do not have a issue with pedophiles as long as they don't actually attempt to rape children.
I am all for polygamist marriage between fully consenting adults.
I would not have a problem with incest if it was really consensual and the problem of genetic defects in offspring was solved.
I'll give you that they certainly became gluttonous, but it was internal complacency and real, external threats that destroyed them in the end. They fragmented and eventually gave way to local rulers again in the places they had conquered.
Well, the religious people would argue that they are working on the "internal complacency" problem.
Thank you for pointing out the thing I didn't quote first. I'm not accepting of bestiality and pedophiles, because the object of their sexual desire isn't another consenting adult, and what they want to do amounts to rape in the end.
But you are accepting of people that might have a crush on a girl they does not like them back?
Now YOU'RE making the "slippy slope" argument. No one is talking about accepting "rape."
It is the same for the incestuous relationship Colonel Coo brought up, even though those the parent and child are adults, it is still rape because ultimately their is an authoritarian relationship between the two.
This is based on an assumption that might not be true. For the sake of this argument: What if they truly loved each other? And this "authoritarian relationship" was not part of it.
Also, and I assume from this you are against S&M kind of relationships? Is that another fetish you disapprove of wholesale?
Let me ask you something - if you accidently slept with a close relative you didn't know existed (say you father had another daughter with another woman, and you just happened to meet and were married), are you still going to hell?
I would not know. I'm not in change of people going to hell or not and I've never meant anyone who's auditory I would trust on the subject, which is why I'm agnostic.
Is there some religion you'd like me to assume true in order to answer your question? If so, which?
It is a different kind of scenario entirely. And BTW - the bible contains numerous incestuous and polygamist relationships, so that isn't really a valid argument from the Christian side. I know you didn't argue it, but I thought it worth mentioning. Many christian sects justify polygamy with the Bible, so how do YOU justify NOT allowing Polygamy?
Frankly I really do not have an issue with bestiality beyond the cruelty to animals aspect of it. If it's legal to murder animals then raping them is not really an issue.
On the pedophilia issue I do not have a issue with pedophiles as long as they don't actually attempt to rape children.
I am all for polygamist marriage between fully consenting adults.
I would not have a problem with incest if it was really consensual and the problem of genetic defects in offspring was solved.
And ^this^ is exactly the kind of attitude my brother, and many religious people, are afraid of becoming more common place.
I didn't say it ONLY gives comfort and peace, just that to many people it is a source of those.
Yet saying "There's nothing wrong with religion X because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy" is still misleading, because it attempts to ignore it's bad points, I just wanted to point that out.
50 years ago we WERE practically a protestant christian theocracy. Read up on how big a deal it was when a Catholic was elected president.
That's my point. At that time the church's influence was at it's strongest yet the US never became a theocracy. So there's no chance of it happening today.
So what you are saying is that you disagree with one religious group intituting Marriage by their definition above all others?
Yes. That's the key difference in the debate;
I support gay marriage.
I oppose gay christian marriage.
However the church opposes all marriage, the reason being they're afraid of seeing gay marriage becoming commonplace, becoming "normal" and having to explain to the future generation of children why God doesn't like gays even though the two ladies living across the street seem like such nice people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
But you are accepting of people that might have a crush on a girl they does not like them back?
Now YOU'RE making the "slippy slope" argument. No one is talking about accepting "rape."
I'm not sure what you mean by your crush example.
Maybe I should clarify. I was taking what you said a few steps further. I have no problems with those people existing, I do have a problem with them acting on their desires, because it equals rape. Make more sense?
Necrophilia is a misdemeanor offense, and while I don't agree with it either, I have the same problem as before, acting on their feelings. I don't feel that, unless written permission is given before death, that actual bodies can be used.
You also have to remember that between 1% and 10% of the population is estimated to be Homosexual, while the deviants (in the sense that they are different) constitute a lot smaller proportion, closer to 1 in 10,000 than 1 in 100, a huge difference.
This is based on an assumption that might not be true. For the sake of this argument: What if they truly loved each other? And this "authoritarian relationship" was not part of it.
Ugh, as much as I hate to admit it, I would say yes. The problem is, without the type of long-lost relative scenario I mentioned earlier those relationships simply don't exist.
Also, and I assume from this you are against S&M kind of relationships? Is that another fetish you disapprove of wholesale?
I think it's weird, but the psychology behind S&M is very different that the authoritarian relationship I was talking about earlier. S&M relationships are still between consentual adults, usually women who feel like they don't have power, but essentially men who are tired of being an authority and just want to be bossed around.
Is there some religion you'd like me to assume true in order to answer you question? If so, which?
I was assuming you were arguing the Christian standpoint, your next answer explained it. What I should have said was are you okay with it, which you answered.
But, YOU did not answer MY question about it. Are you ok with polygamy?
Yes, I'm perfectly okay with Polygamy. The problem is in today's culture it is abused, especially by the fundamentalist church of latter-day saints, which goes very old testament on the option (meaning child marraiges). Caprica is a great example of a healthy(ish?) Polygamist marriage.
It would make temptation a lot easier to deal with if I had to restrict myself to, say, three women instead of one. However I'm way too selfish to want another guy with my girlfriend, so it would be hypocritical of me to do the same thing to her.
When I was a Christian I voted for an amendment to my state's constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. (The only non-presidential election I bothered voting in, btw.) Though I'm no longer religious, and would never vote for something like that now, I try and keep that mindset accessible -- if only to learn from my past mistakes.
Why did I vote to ban same-sex marriage? Because I believed that God didn't want gays getting married, and because I trusted in God to know what was right and good. THIS is the danger of religion: the unshakable conviction that you know what is good and what is evil.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
If they like someone that does not like them back "the object of their sexual desire isn't another consenting adult, and what they want to do amounts to rape in the end."
Maybe I should clarify. I was taking what you said a few steps further. I have no problems with those people existing, I do have a problem with them acting on their desires, because it equals rape. Make more sense?
We are not talking about them "existing" in socity we are talking about them being "accepted" in society. AND having their sexual preference becoming open and accepted as well.
Necrophilia is a misdemeanor offense, and while I don't agree with it either, I have the same problem as before, acting on their feelings. I don't feel that, unless written permission is given before death, that actual bodies can be used.
So, it would be moral if the "owner" of the body gave permission?
You also have to remember that between 1% and 10% of the population is estimated to be Homosexual, while the deviants (in the sense that they are different) constitute a lot smaller proportion, closer to 1 in 10,000 than 1 in 100, a huge difference.
Soo.. because they are more of a minority you feel... what exactly?
Ugh, as much as I hate to admit it, I would say yes. The problem is, without the type of long-lost relative scenario I mentioned earlier those relationships simply don't exist.
At all? How do you know?
Also, why do you "hate to admit it" if you don't want to agree with it, don't.
If I don't quote it it means I probably agree with it, or you explained it to my satisfaction. It does not mean I am ignoring it.
If they like someone that does not like them back "the object of their sexual desire isn't another consenting adult, and what they want to do amounts to rape in the end."
[quote=Taylor;/comments/11031692]We are not talking about them "existing" in socity we are talking about them being "accepted" in society. AND having their sexual preference becoming open and accepted as well.
Okay, I didn't realize what you were trying to get at before. Desiring something is one thing, what I was doing was take it to the end result. I think that eventually, they will be accepted in society, but their interest will not be a socially acceptable behavior. Obviously, it IS a tricky situation, but if we de-stigmatize it, we won't have as many predators as we will have people looking for help.
So, it would be moral if the "owner" of the body gave permission?
I don't see why not. It's the exact same situation as organ harvesting and medical research, so there is a precedent for donating your body. It is really gross though.
Soo.. because they are more of a minority you feel... what exactly?
Sorry. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. The larger a minority, the more legitimacy they claim. Obviously the most legitimate group is the majority, and they are from what social norms are based. Currently, in the United States, that is the White Christians. However, our system is based around majority rule and minority rights. Our minorities deserve to be protected, even those I personally find disgusting, so long as they don't cause harm to others.
I read a study years ago about this, but I honestly can't find it again. Since I can't cite it, lets instead just say that it my opinion that they rarely are, but as I mentioned the first time through the incest question, we'd have a psychiatrist there to decide.
Also, why do you "hate to admit it" if you don't want to agree with it, don't.
There is a difference between not liking something and not agreeing with it. I don't like the fact that as an EMT I have to let some people die to save those with a best chance of survival (I.E. Triage), but I agree with the principle behind it.
It is the same in this situation. My personal bias is slanted against it, but I can't disagree with the principle. Again, who am I to impose my moral beliefs on someone else?
Morals come from religion. As Nietzsche points out when you lose religion slowly you lose morals because in a democracy all you really have is mob rule and what does the mob want? What is best for itself. This means that eventually you get to the point where murder becomes justified and other such nonsense.
I put a ‘lil more thought into it and came up with this:
Social stability, a good moral compass, and religious beliefs are all based on socially acceptable practices and
environments where the law of the land includes a belief in God or a greater good.
Law is history. History is not only a record of lessons learned, it’s also a record of humanity and a moral textbook
for modern civilization. The atrocities of man in history serve as a reminder of what happens when the will of man
replaces humanity, humility, and/or the belief in God or a greater good in the spirit of the law and will of the land.
Don’t know if it matters but, I‘m southern Baptist and that’s how I make sense of it.
BTW, these oddities are amongst the reason why our courts should only consider our Constitution instead of the more 'progressive' view of "what's the world doing?".
False dichotomy. I recommend the third option, "What's right?"
I think this is just our difference of view from the side of the fence we stand on. I disagree because God is real to me. You disagree because god is not real to you.
Who said anything about God? Religion is a social institution that may or may not be inspired by an actual divine being, but certainly exists. The claim is that religion, as a social institution, is not the source of human moral behavior: that we do not think murder is wrong because we read it in the Bible and/or heard it from a priest. Evidence for this claim includes the universality of moral behavior among widely diverse religions (including the Golden Rule you yourself mentioned), the presence of moral behavior among agnostics and atheists, and the apparent moral behavior, in a more rudimentary form, of nonhuman primates who are of course nonreligious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
False dichotomy. I recommend the third option, "What's right?"
While I agree with the "false dichotomy" part, I disagree with the "whats right" part. It is not the purview of the courts to decide what is "right" and "wrong." Furthermore, relying on the courts to do so results in the current problem that many people see of activist judges who think "x" controversial activity is OK, despite being illegal, and thus ruling the law inapplicable.
The courts should, ideally, lag the congress in matters of "right" and "wrong." Otherwise, we may as well get rid of the congress and just have the courts determine the laws.
Interestingly enough, this view (which i recognize to be both controversial, and the minority) also brings into question trials such as the Nuremberg trials. On what authority were they held? What was the code that was just to convict the guilty? Likewise, countries that have not agreed to the human rights treaty can't be tried in the international court of human rights -- because that court has no authority over it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Almost everything I've found in the Bible referring to government, especially in the New Testament, would seem to promote seperation of church and state ("Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Give unto God what is God's"), and that you should live as a Christian, yet there always seem to be evangelicals, and others, who would ignore these very clear messages and force people who don't share their beliefs to live like them. My biggest fear is that the United States can easily become a Christian Theocracy, something most of our enemies in the world already believe, due to an overwhelming majority of our troops being white evangelicals.
As a side note, part of this is to argue against the Christian opposition to Gay Marriage. In my point of view, the moment Christians allowed Marriage to become a legal institution, they lost the right to regulate all Marriages according to their point of view, but instead allowed it to become a government matter, devoid of religious implication. However, I want to keep this open to more general matters of introducing faith-based morality into law, when not everyone shares that faith.
Going from that, how much should those Christian or other religious values make their way into law? Is right of Christians to try to get their moral views legalized at all? Should our laws only prevent actions that would harm other people, or should there be a higher standard?
Obviously, some faith-based morality with always translate in law (I.E. Murder is wrong), I'm just curious as to where you draw the line, and why.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The argument is (not mine) that moral degradation IS harmful. You have to remember the mindset we are talking about here. A mindset that sends you to hell is harmful. Also having a society that feeds into that mindset is even more harmful.
The argument is that having gay marriage legal would be like having drugs legal. Sure, only the people doing the drugs would be harmed, but having people in the neighborhood talking about how cool drugs are and doing drugs in the open would make it easier for society as a whole to be corrupted. A society would fall into decadence. Homosexually in Rome is the reason the authors of the New Testament were against it, and Rome did fall.
That being said, I don't think gay marriage is like that at all, and I agree with the resent court rulings on the subject. Legal marriage should not be between a man and a woman, but between two adults. I don't feel this will have a corrupting effect on society as a whole because I don't think being gay is harmful or even something that can be chosen, so it would not be a "corrupting influence."
However, my conservative brother would say that this is just one step on a slippy slope. Some people, for example, are sexual attracted to nonhuman animals or to children. Again, often this is not something that's a choice on their part, should we be accepting of those people?
There is always a gray area. There is always a point to be argued and another perspective to be looked at. Some people chose religion as their lens. They look to the wisdom of the past to help them make choices about the future. I do not begrudge them this. Personally, I like looking to the future more than the past, but, again, in life their are no easy answers.
There is always more to consider and more angles to look at something from.
If the US didn't become a theocracy 50 years ago, it's not about to become one now, so I'm not worried. Also a lot of evangelicals are fond of the passages where it's said that Jesus/God is the King of Kings
Ok, let me say again that marriage is not an exclusively christian ritual. So they haven't lost the right to regulate all marriages because they never had it to begin with. So gays should be able to marry legally and have all the bells and whistle that come with it, same as a hetero marriage.
However, if a gay couple wants a true christian wedding, like it or not, they are going against the teachings of the church. At that point the government cannot force religions to change their beliefs.
Well that's the tricky question at the heart of all those religious disputes isn't it?
Simply put, a law should never be made base on beliefs, only one reasoned lines of thought. However even that can be complex and full of pitfalls, so there's really no perfect answer yet.
I'll assume you're serious
Golden Rule = One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one's self
The Dark Side exists everywhere, from George Lucas movies, to religion, to how people drive. Further, it's often shades of gray.
I don't think that the various religious factions could get enough support to truly take over. The closest they got was the effective take-over of the republican party during the GWB presidency.
Exactly - that church can not marry gays all they want.
PS - gays will also have to deal with the dark side of marriage too. Divorce, child support, alimony, and wonky tax structures. However, everyone should have that opportunity to "marry" the person that they love.
Well, separation of church and state. Makes sense.
Laws have always had some basis in beliefs though - it just depends on what you mean by beliefs. If beliefs are "morals" we've got lots of laws around like that. Tons of them will never be enforced, but they're on the books.
Agree with you on the perfect answer. Even reasoned lines of thought can have vastly different results.
Let's take negligence law for example
pure negligence - You can recover if you get hurt based on someone else's negligence...even if you're a complete a utter moron. Like walking through a hole in a fence, walking through yellow construction tape, and falling into a manhole
contributory negligence - if you're negligent as well, you can't recover at all. So, for example, if you hit me and I get paralyzed...but if I was driving 15 miles over the speed limit...tough luck.
comparative negligence - intermediate regime where "blame" is allocated. So, for example, it's 30% your fault for speeding, but 70% my fault for pulling out in front of you.
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
Religious morality can and does come into conflict with this, as people attempt to put forth their religious doctrine and use it as a political position to prevent basic human rights from being fulfilled. I.E., the institution of gay marriage.
It's been a longstanding travesty of justice that homosexuals have been prevented from having the same rights as married straight couples. But because a few misinformed, loud mouthed ignorant sects that like to call themselves "Christian" they hold some sort of psychotic sway over political process.
Same as intolerance towards political candidacy. The very idea that Barack Obama could of at one point been even associated with Muslims causes these so-called "Christians" to foam at the mouth in fear and rage. Which is absolutely ridiculous and has no place in politics, let alone the law.
And yet they hold an incredible amount of sway over what is allowed and what is not allowed simply because we assume that religion is required to have morality and compassion.
This is a false assumption. As beliefs are just that, beliefs. Personal and communal. Our mission is not to oppress minorities unless they accept God as their savior. We are supposed to consider ourselves as lesser than our neighbors. Not superior, morally or otherwise.
So although there are some basic premises that religious morality has to offer to democratic law, all in all democratic law should be decided through political objectivity. Should. Sadly, it isn't, and isn't going any signs of changing.
You are putting a far too-heavy emphasis on religion here. Morality exists separate from religion and in fact far more than likely predates religion (I say this because punishment for stealing and/or not sharing food has been observed in other primates). It's an evolutionary trait that helps social animals such as humans form a functional society and exists as a psychological concept, not a religious one.
It's a chicken vs egg thing. Did religion shape society or did society shape religion?
You used the perjury example as something religion brought to the justice system. One can easily argue that perjury was already treated as a societal wrong before it was made part of a religious dogma. ie if it was not a commandment, the Hebrews would still have had laws against it.
The Faith of the American Soldier by Stephen Mansfield
I strongly suggest reviewing these for this debate.
As for gay marrages - a gay couple should have the same legal right to fight and
be just as miserable as a straight couple.
Rome didn't fall so much as fade away. This was due to overreach of their grasp on territory and the descent into pure empire from a republic.
This is a common, and stupid, argument made by people against Gay Marraige. I would disagree with your brother because of one major point, which is that animals and children aren't consenting adults. I trust I don't need to argue that point further?
This is very true.
The Golden Rule has many different versions due to translations, but essential it means that you should do to others what you would want them to do to you.
I didn't say it ONLY gives comfort and peace, just that to many people it is a source of those.
50 years ago we WERE practically a protestant christian theocracy. Read up on how big a deal it was when a Catholic was elected president.
So what you are saying is that you disagree with one religious group intituting Marriage by their definition above all others?
True. Gay marriage doesn't mean the Catholic Church has to start marrying them, just that they CAN get married legally. Remember, Christians aren't LEGALLY married unless they get their marriage license from the court and have a state sanctioned person perform the ceremony. The christian wedding is just topping on the cake.
Apologies, accounts vary depending on what they define as evangelical. Let me rephrase by saying many, but I can't provide proof because some studies say 40% and some say up to 60%.
I think you missed the point. Churches can, and should, have their own standards for marriage, but from a strictly legal standpoint the legal partnership that is marriage can't be defined by those religious standards.
See my above definition. Marriage outside the species is a ridiculous bit of reasoning, see what I discussed with Taylor. Consenting adults is the prevailing term for those legally able to enter into a marriage.
Power of attorney is not the same thing. Marriage is a social institution, not exclusively a religious one. Since I'm not Christian, are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to get married?
This is an interesting argument. They ARE both consenting adults. While I find it distasteful, I would allow it if a psychologist determines that it is a truly consentual relationship. However, almost all cases of incest aren't amongst consentual adults, they amount to rape through abuse of power by one of the parental figures.
Religion is not fundamental, morality is. The two can be mutually exclusive. Religion is a by-product that puts morality in context, and gives consequences after the mortal life span.
It is illegal to perjure yourself because you are lying in court, where the government expects the truth from you.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here.
For the theory that religion is the source of morality, at least, it's not so much "brushed off" as "examined in detail and then rejected". Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil is a good book to take a look at, but you can start with Franz de Waal's excellent recent article in the New York Times.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Certainly, it was strong for a while while it was a pure empire.
Don't call my brother's argument 'stupid.' He is a smart fellow.
I am more than happy to debate his side of the argument even though I don't believe it in my heart:
You seem to be very up in arms about just accepting these bestiality people and pedophiles, yet many of them make the same arguments as homosexuals. Certainly it would be possible for those kinds of people to find acceptance with society without harming children or animals. You could make pornography for those kind of people more readily available and what not. But, we all agree THAT would be a bad idea, correct? Why? Well, while some forms of acceptance and pornography might not be harmful to children and animals, it would have a corrupting effect, much like people argue legalizing drugs would. By encouraging bestiality and pedophilia we would be making it easier for the detrimental behavior to occur. The slippy slope is NOT always a fallacy if one does, in fact, enable the other.
Also on topic,
Would you, for example, be in favor of a Polygamist marriage between consenting adults? Or between father and daughter, assuming both are adults? Why or Why not?
Religion in form for the most part is compatible as religions adapt to our culture and our culture adapts to those new religions without much problem. Theocracies in the European tradition just do not last long here past two generations except in very small territories such as the Anabaptist communes scattered around. The rest of the theocracies or what can approach a theocracy would be tribal lands, and for the most part they don't really matter much in the day to day sense unless if you live on a reservation.
Even Iran is showing signs of tensions with their own theocracy with Ahmadinejad wanting more power for the Iraqi War generation in the Revolutionary Guard. The mullahs days are numbered as a real power broker, the next revolution in Iran is a secular one. The question is whether democrats win or the autocrats do. Even then, the Iranians were built off of a sense of Plato's Republic more so or equal to religious law. There is a lot of secularity to governments, and at best a theocracy is a partnership than a true theocracy. The only true theocracy in the world I would argue is the Vatican as a nation-state.
Considering American culture. Christianity wants to legislate morality and pop up a few monuments here and there. The Blue Laws were as close as we got to that, and it was the Protestant sects that wanted them where as the Catholics were the more liberal that actually fought the Blue Laws. So even within religion, there's competition to divvy up what should be legislated and what not to be legislated.
This is why I go back to culture, demographics, economics, and sociology. There really is not a singular explanation to why certain things are the way they are and this includes our current laws. Either way, it is the belief structure that is highly important. Whether the zealotry is with Marxists or Christians or whatever pops up, the fundamental point is that a fundamentalist will always exist.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'll give you that they certainly became gluttonous, but it was internal complacency and real, external threats that destroyed them in the end. They fragmented and eventually gave way to local rulers again in the places they had conquered.
I didn't call your brother stupid, just the argument. It is comparing apples and oranges.
Thank you for pointing out the thing I didn't quote first. I'm not accepting of bestiality and pedophiles, because the object of their sexual desire isn't another consenting adult, and what they want to do amounts to rape in the end.
It is the same for the incestuous relationship Colonel Coo brought up, even though those the parent and child are adults, it is still rape because ultimately their is an authoritarian relationship between the two. Let me ask you something - if you accidently slept with a close relative you didn't know existed (say you father had another daughter with another woman, and you just happened to meet and were married), are you still going to hell? It is a different kind of scenario entirely. And BTW - the bible contains numerous incestuous and polygamist relationships, so that isn't really a valid argument from the Christian side. I know you didn't argue it, but I thought it worth mentioning. Many christian sects justify polygamy with the Bible, so how do YOU justify NOT allowing Polygamy?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Frankly I really do not have an issue with bestiality beyond the cruelty to animals aspect of it. If it's legal to murder animals then raping them is not really an issue.
On the pedophilia issue I do not have a issue with pedophiles as long as they don't actually attempt to rape children.
I am all for polygamist marriage between fully consenting adults.
I would not have a problem with incest if it was really consensual and the problem of genetic defects in offspring was solved.
I edited accordingly on my second reread.
But you are accepting of people that might have a crush on a girl they does not like them back?
Now YOU'RE making the "slippy slope" argument. No one is talking about accepting "rape."
On another subject:
What about necrophilia?
This is based on an assumption that might not be true. For the sake of this argument: What if they truly loved each other? And this "authoritarian relationship" was not part of it.
Also, and I assume from this you are against S&M kind of relationships? Is that another fetish you disapprove of wholesale?
I would not know. I'm not in change of people going to hell or not and I've never meant anyone who's auditory I would trust on the subject, which is why I'm agnostic.
Is there some religion you'd like me to assume true in order to answer your question? If so, which?
Personally? I'm ok with it. I made this thread to talk about it a while back:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=187259
And by the end I was convince it was A-ok.
But, YOU did not answer MY question about it. Are you ok with polygamy?
And ^this^ is exactly the kind of attitude my brother, and many religious people, are afraid of becoming more common place.
That's my point. At that time the church's influence was at it's strongest yet the US never became a theocracy. So there's no chance of it happening today.
Yes. That's the key difference in the debate;
I support gay marriage.
I oppose gay christian marriage.
However the church opposes all marriage, the reason being they're afraid of seeing gay marriage becoming commonplace, becoming "normal" and having to explain to the future generation of children why God doesn't like gays even though the two ladies living across the street seem like such nice people.
I'm not sure what you mean by your crush example.
Maybe I should clarify. I was taking what you said a few steps further. I have no problems with those people existing, I do have a problem with them acting on their desires, because it equals rape. Make more sense?
Necrophilia is a misdemeanor offense, and while I don't agree with it either, I have the same problem as before, acting on their feelings. I don't feel that, unless written permission is given before death, that actual bodies can be used.
You also have to remember that between 1% and 10% of the population is estimated to be Homosexual, while the deviants (in the sense that they are different) constitute a lot smaller proportion, closer to 1 in 10,000 than 1 in 100, a huge difference.
Deviancy is all a matter of perspective:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Deviance
Ugh, as much as I hate to admit it, I would say yes. The problem is, without the type of long-lost relative scenario I mentioned earlier those relationships simply don't exist.
I think it's weird, but the psychology behind S&M is very different that the authoritarian relationship I was talking about earlier. S&M relationships are still between consentual adults, usually women who feel like they don't have power, but essentially men who are tired of being an authority and just want to be bossed around.
I was assuming you were arguing the Christian standpoint, your next answer explained it. What I should have said was are you okay with it, which you answered.
Yes, I'm perfectly okay with Polygamy. The problem is in today's culture it is abused, especially by the fundamentalist church of latter-day saints, which goes very old testament on the option (meaning child marraiges). Caprica is a great example of a healthy(ish?) Polygamist marriage.
It would make temptation a lot easier to deal with if I had to restrict myself to, say, three women instead of one. However I'm way too selfish to want another guy with my girlfriend, so it would be hypocritical of me to do the same thing to her.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Why did I vote to ban same-sex marriage? Because I believed that God didn't want gays getting married, and because I trusted in God to know what was right and good. THIS is the danger of religion: the unshakable conviction that you know what is good and what is evil.
If they like someone that does not like them back "the object of their sexual desire isn't another consenting adult, and what they want to do amounts to rape in the end."
We are not talking about them "existing" in socity we are talking about them being "accepted" in society. AND having their sexual preference becoming open and accepted as well.
So, it would be moral if the "owner" of the body gave permission?
Soo.. because they are more of a minority you feel... what exactly?
At all? How do you know?
Also, why do you "hate to admit it" if you don't want to agree with it, don't.
Do go on. Why do you think that? What's the bases for that thought?
Okay, I didn't realize what you were trying to get at before. Desiring something is one thing, what I was doing was take it to the end result. I think that eventually, they will be accepted in society, but their interest will not be a socially acceptable behavior. Obviously, it IS a tricky situation, but if we de-stigmatize it, we won't have as many predators as we will have people looking for help.
I don't see why not. It's the exact same situation as organ harvesting and medical research, so there is a precedent for donating your body. It is really gross though.
Sorry. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. The larger a minority, the more legitimacy they claim. Obviously the most legitimate group is the majority, and they are from what social norms are based. Currently, in the United States, that is the White Christians. However, our system is based around majority rule and minority rights. Our minorities deserve to be protected, even those I personally find disgusting, so long as they don't cause harm to others.
I read a study years ago about this, but I honestly can't find it again. Since I can't cite it, lets instead just say that it my opinion that they rarely are, but as I mentioned the first time through the incest question, we'd have a psychiatrist there to decide.
There is a difference between not liking something and not agreeing with it. I don't like the fact that as an EMT I have to let some people die to save those with a best chance of survival (I.E. Triage), but I agree with the principle behind it.
It is the same in this situation. My personal bias is slanted against it, but I can't disagree with the principle. Again, who am I to impose my moral beliefs on someone else?
Actually, I confused BDSM with S&M. BDSM is what I was referring to, S&M is a psychiatric disorder that is essentially a very poor coping mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You answer this:
And one's "moral beliefs" are oftentimes exactly how you should vote, since they are what make up "social norms."
I try to ALWAYS vote based on my morals. It just so happens my morals don't line up with my brothers.
Social stability, a good moral compass, and religious beliefs are all based on socially acceptable practices and
environments where the law of the land includes a belief in God or a greater good.
Law is history. History is not only a record of lessons learned, it’s also a record of humanity and a moral textbook
for modern civilization. The atrocities of man in history serve as a reminder of what happens when the will of man
replaces humanity, humility, and/or the belief in God or a greater good in the spirit of the law and will of the land.
Don’t know if it matters but, I‘m southern Baptist and that’s how I make sense of it.
False dichotomy. I recommend the third option, "What's right?"
Who said anything about God? Religion is a social institution that may or may not be inspired by an actual divine being, but certainly exists. The claim is that religion, as a social institution, is not the source of human moral behavior: that we do not think murder is wrong because we read it in the Bible and/or heard it from a priest. Evidence for this claim includes the universality of moral behavior among widely diverse religions (including the Golden Rule you yourself mentioned), the presence of moral behavior among agnostics and atheists, and the apparent moral behavior, in a more rudimentary form, of nonhuman primates who are of course nonreligious.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While I agree with the "false dichotomy" part, I disagree with the "whats right" part. It is not the purview of the courts to decide what is "right" and "wrong." Furthermore, relying on the courts to do so results in the current problem that many people see of activist judges who think "x" controversial activity is OK, despite being illegal, and thus ruling the law inapplicable.
The courts should, ideally, lag the congress in matters of "right" and "wrong." Otherwise, we may as well get rid of the congress and just have the courts determine the laws.
Interestingly enough, this view (which i recognize to be both controversial, and the minority) also brings into question trials such as the Nuremberg trials. On what authority were they held? What was the code that was just to convict the guilty? Likewise, countries that have not agreed to the human rights treaty can't be tried in the international court of human rights -- because that court has no authority over it.