Thread: Same sex marriage

I need to drop a hit of acid before I progress..

Originally Posted by tomcat

the Nazis, Pol Pot and various historical authoritarians (including Popes)

Clearly we can discount Popes from the realm of rational enquiry but genocidal 20th century left wing dictators were essentially acting in ways that were more religious than rational.

Their political convictions were taken as an article of faith (on pain of death for dissenters) and no amount of economic evidence to the contrary (e.g. mass starvation of their citizens) would shake their belief in their political bible (The Communist Manifesto - 1848).

Originally Posted by tomcat

live life as a gay individual, a woman, or a Third Worlder

First hand experience of the group-identity-politics holy grail of 'group-victimhood' is not a pre-requisite in order for an individual to be intellectually engaged with the process of enquiry into the ideas supporting absolute non-relativist moral right and wrong.

Stop right now. Looper you are a longtime bigot and homophobe. Your history here is carved in stone.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...agree: perhaps refined to poorly informed generalizations...
...I suspect it is due to the brevity of his thinking process...
...glue is apt...humans are beginning to see the need for a different social contract...
...agree...the oppressing minorities framework is a proven failure...
...disagree: "it" is as clear cut as I think "it" is: stop religious adherents from insisting others must live as they do...

You are generalising. Most if not all Christians I know do not wish to force their faith on anyone. They are happy to live as they wish in their faith and really are unconcerned that other don't share their belief.
Every culture has some rules that people are expected to adhere to for the overall well being of the populace. Most societies frown on copulating in public. One could argue as it doesn't hurt anyone else and the couple are consenting adults, why should it be prevented or considered a crime?
The problem is not religion but humanity. The uncomfortable truth is we are born survivors and most of us will do anything to survive including murder and pretty well anything else. As a nazi concentration camp survivor from Auschwitz remarked, "The survivors were not the good ones. The good ones died first. The rest of us did what we had to do to survive". Another related how to turn up for morning roll call without shoes meant certain execution. One morning he woke to find someone had stolen his shoes. He then stole a pair from another man who was still sleeping, knowing this person would be killed. I have seen nothing to suggest this horrendous period in human history will not be repeated. From the gulags and Lubianka To the infamous S21 of Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Stop right now. Looper you are a longtime bigot and homophobe. Your history here is carved in stone.

You people who think you are morally and intellectually superior are annoying us that are.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

You people who think you are morally and intellectually superior are annoying us that are.

What? Ok..

Who is us?

Originally Posted by bsnub

Looper you are a longtime bigot and homophobe.

I have nothing against gays or gay folk wanting their partnerships legally recognised. Redefining marriage is one way of doing this. Standardising civil partnerships is another.

Which solution you prefer is splitting moral hairs and an irrelevancy in the bigger picture of the real victimisation of gay people by regimes like Putin's Russia and the Islamic world.

I am opposed to the denunciation of people who support the latter solution as 'homophobes'.

This is my main motivation in making an argument out of the whole issue in which I really have no personal stake either way.

Left wing political branding of people who are not on the 'politically-correct' side of any given debate is the real problem I am opposing in the 'gay marriage' debate.

Originally Posted by Looper

This is my main motivation in making an argument out of the whole issue in which I really have no personal stake either way.

...I don't know why you bother: your arguments are unpersuasive excursions into the weeds...

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

I have seen nothing to suggest this horrendous period in human history will not be repeated. From the gulags and Lubianka To the infamous S21 of Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge.

...*cough*...thank you for your contribution...

Originally Posted by bsnub

Looper you are a longtime bigot and homophobe.

Not in a position to dispute or agree with that, but this 'TC....the muslims are much worse' argument to excuse Christian bigotry...man, that's really feeble.

And 'out-feebling' Hugh Cow takes some doing.

Originally Posted by tomcat

I don't know why you bother

Because I find it interesting.

Originally Posted by tomcat

your arguments are unpersuasive excursions into the weeds...

We were talking about whether right and wrong are objectively measurable. You seem to be asserting that they are culturally relativist. This seems a strange position for someone who is as opposed to the irrationality of religion as you seem to be.

Do you think right and wrong are things that can be determined by rational enquiry (i.e. objectively true or false) or not?

If they are objectively true or false then we can measure religions against each other and hold one to be more morally repugnant and more urgently in need of rectification than another, which I certainly think we can (and it is not Christianity taking line honours).

Originally Posted by cyrille

TC....the muslims are much worse' argument to excuse Christian bigotry

It does not excuse Christian bigotry but it puts it into perspective. There is a much bigger fish to fry than Christianity when it comes to tackling the problem of superstitious religion and the quantifiable negative impact that it has on the lives of gay people.

Originally Posted by Looper

I have nothing against gays or gay folk wanting their partnerships legally recognised. Redefining marriage is one way of doing this. Standardising civil partnerships is another.

Which solution you prefer is splitting moral hairs

Says he has nothing against gays.

Then splits hairs.

Why don't you just admit you hate gays you stupid fucker.

You've been droning on about this for god knows how long, and you still haven't really answered two important questions:

1. How does a couple of blokes getting married affect your life?
2. What fucking business is it of yours anyway?

You coming out Harold

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

How does a couple of blokes getting married affect your life?

There are many things which have no effect on my life but which I still have an opinion on. It is called being interested in the affairs of the world.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What fucking business is it of yours anyway?

This is speakers corner. My business is whatever I choose it to be. What business is it of yours?

Originally Posted by Jack meoff

You coming out Harold

Haroldina is TD's classic raving repressed closet poofter who sometimes forgets to insert his Donald Trump rubber pacifier before logging on which plays havoc with his blood pressure...

Don't forget Harold...!

Originally Posted by Looper

poofter

Doesn't take much to bring the real Looper out does it?

You must struggle to try and contain your homophobia when writing reams of bullshit.

Originally Posted by Looper

Humanism and its rational approach to weighing moral right and wrong is only way forward for an intelligent species such as ourselves.

Superstitious religion is inevitably doomed to go the way of the dinosaurs as rational humanism is the only way for a global agreement on ethics to be reached.

While we are pressing for that to happen it is certainly possible to objectively weigh the moral shortcomings of the various religions and measure them against each other.

Islam takes the Jules Rimet trophy for moral retrogression not by a small measure but by a country mile. The competition does not even have a look in.

While we are in the process of actively dismantling religion we have to be honest about calling out the major criminals and not cower behind politically driven fear of causing cultural offence.

Superstitious religious beliefs have to be put to bed and the worst religion on the planet (by far) deserves the most attention.

Once again I find myself broadly in agreement with you.
As a disclaimer I would make the following points.
First consider, not only the current state of the various faiths, but also the historical impact of those beliefs. Barbaric violence was meted out in the name of various faiths, so we have not always had the objective views of the morally ethical humanist function that we have today.
There are more branches to each faith than the simple definition you might wish to use in your humanist approach.
You make a prescription for the whole of Islamic faith, yet there are benign groups, even today, who would meet your objective criteria for a more humanist approach. When King Henry split the catholic faith, it caused a ruck that continues today, and remains riven by barbaric lack of birth control and an evil kind of pragmatism, held sacrosanct by the contemporary version.
To an extent, you would have to agree with Hugh Cow that a significant number of Christian believers are quite benign in the way they practice their faith.
It leads me to the conclusion that, most religious fundamentalism will die out of its own accord, eventually.

Would you prefer that only humanists determine the moral compass of future belief systems, based on a simplified moral code, that most religious teachings already practice?
The alternative is to invite participation from all major groups, in order to determine the order of their own demise.
An interesting debate.

I take your point, but I honestly believe that a few self evident simple truths could form the basis of an ethical framework.
Do not kill?
Do not steal?
Always try your very best to do the right thing?

Im happy to admit that this is a moral code that I have grown up with following christian teachings. Teachings that I have largely abandoned in favour of the humanist approach.

Ther are things worth salvaging from many cultures and religions.

In each example I have quoted, you can choose to be pedantic, or accept that there will always be openings for individual interpretation. No bad thing in itself.

If you follow demands for the dismantling of organized religion, you do need to have a ready made replacement.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but maybe you weren’t talking to me?

Originally Posted by cyrille

Not in a position to dispute or agree with that, but this 'TC....the muslims are much worse' argument to excuse Christian bigotry...man, that's really feeble.

And 'out-feebling' Hugh Cow takes some doing.

Jeezus H Christ Cheryl. Have you ever made a positive contribution or thread on this forum? You are like Eeyore in winnie the poo. You are one depressing mofo. Have you ever considered working with patients who request assisted suicide? Five minutes of your dull and witless suicide enducing presence,even without your intellectually dessicated conversation would do the trick.
For a patient to survive that, they would need a stronger grip on life than your lips have around your ladyboys cock.

Originally Posted by Switch

I take your point, but I honestly believe that a few self evident simple truths could form the basis of an ethical framework.
Do not kill?
Do not steal?
Always try your very best to do the right thing?

None of those are self-evident truths, and the last is sort of circular...what is the right thing?
Perhpas things like "Do unto other as you will have others do unto you"? But then you get poor people stealing from you and justifying it by saying "I don't mind if he steals from me; I've got nothing to steal!"
Ethics may be a better thing to ponder, rather than morals. If we take morals as being a set of rules for individuals to follow for the sake of society, and ethics to be a set of rules for society to follow for the sake of the individual.
? Just putting it out there.

Originally Posted by Switch

You make a prescription for the whole of Islamic faith, yet there are benign groups, even today, who would meet your objective criteria for a more humanist approach.

You cannot exculpate an entire religious movement just by pointing out that there are some good people who do good things. I am interested in quantifying how good or bad a religion is objectively.

One example of evidence of how morally backward Islam is is presented in Sam Harris's excellent book The End of Faith. In the chapter titled The Problem with Islam he presents a table of responses from a long list of Islamic countries populations polled on the the question 'Is suicide bombing of civilians justified?'

Respondents can choose from various options like Always, most of the time, some of the time, occasionally, never.

The proportions of people who respond Always is quite a alarming but the real shock is the small number of people who respond 'Never' in most of these countries.

The vast majority of Muslims in Islamic countries believe that suicide bombing of civilians is justified at least 'occasionally'

This is plain wrong. There is no moral kaleidoscope that you can hold up to make the intentional killing of innocent civilians morally right.

Islam has a serious problem with its vexatious relationship with the rest of the world and the ways in which that allows its adherents to dangerously distort the norms of common human morality.

It is by far the most objectively repugnant religion on the planet.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You're attitude to homosexuality is a good example. You say it's wrong, I say it's not wrong

I have never stated and do not believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. You are making a category error by confusing moral culpability with an error in natural development.

It is very likely that lifelong exclusive same sex preference is a developmental error in sexual behaviour since there is no credible evolutionary theory explaining it.

There is no connection between this observation and human morality. It is not a question of morality.

People who victimise gay people for their sexuality can be held morally culpable just as anyone who victimises anyone for anything that marks them out as different can be held morally culpable.

Young people are generally distressed to realise they are gay as it presents them with more hurdles in life than would otherwise be the case. For this they deserve our sympathy, not our opprobrium.

In the future maybe we will be able to choose our sexuality. That is not the case today so gay people deserve our support but we are being intellectually dishonest if we pretend that there is nothing wrong (not in the moral sense but in the developmental sense) with lifelong exclusive same sex preference.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Morals are only a matter of opinion, there is no natural law (such as gravity) that determines morals, just mere mortal opinion. As such, and as mankind's cultures (and thus attitudes) vary, there could not be a consensus.

Human nature is not a shape-shifting creature that exhibits different forms in different parts of the world. We have a common psychological architecture. It is therefore possible to determine objectively whether an action is right or wrong using utilitarian calculus of measuring tangible harm and benefit on other people of an action by an individual.

You may be able to mitigate culpability to some extent through cultural relativism but that highlights a problem with that culture that needs to be changed. The action in question is still objectively wrong.

The following things common in the Muslim world are absolutely wrong in non-negotiable terms.

Killing gay men because they are gay
Honour killing women because they have been raped
Judicial rape of women because the have broken rules of propriety.
Acid attacks on women because they have spurned romantic overtures.
Stoning to death of women for adultery

It is true that morality has evolved over time but it is evolving not in an arbitrary direction but in a coherent direction that makes sense in ever increasingly objective terms.

It is not 'culturally bigoted' to say that some areas of the world are ahead of the objective curve and others are behind the curve in non-relativistic terms.

The science of neurology will be increasingly involved the analysis of morality over the coming century. The sphere of morality will become an increasingly scientific sphere just like the church has ceded other spheres of knowledge over the centuries.

Originally Posted by Looper

Human nature is not a shape-shifting creature that exhibits different forms in different parts of the world

We're talking not about bodies but psyche and attitudes.

Originally Posted by Looper

determine objectively whether an action is right or wrong using utilitarian calculus of measuring tangible harm and benefit on other people of an action by an individual.

But you are using your measure. Why is that the quantifiably correct one, and does it measure accurately? To explain the second part of that question, not everyone is harmed equally by the same action. When I was a kid in Fiji, getting a cut on my foot was simply ignored sand and grit getting into it and all whereas a kid in, say, Buckingham Palace might scream and shout and consider he's been severely injured and expect Mummy to call an ambulance. The physical injury is the same but the harm or effect of the injury is not.

Originally Posted by Looper

The following things common in the Muslim world

But it's not the Muslim world. You just wrote"You cannot exculpate an entire religious movement just by pointing out that there are some good people who do good things." 2-way street. You can not demonise an entire religion by pointing out there are some nasty buggers in it.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

None of those are self-evident truths, and the last is sort of circular...what is the right thing?
Perhpas things like "Do unto other as you will have others do unto you"? But then you get poor people stealing from you and justifying it by saying "I don't mind if he steals from me; I've got nothing to steal!"
Ethics may be a better thing to ponder, rather than morals. If we take morals as being a set of rules for individuals to follow for the sake of society, and ethics to be a set of rules for society to follow for the sake of the individual.
? Just putting it out there.

Like I said, there are opportunities for pedantry here.

Originally Posted by Switch

Like I said, there are opportunities for pedantry here.

Oh, come on Switch, how can people have a discussion without disagreeing on both finer and larger points?
Pedantry? Come on.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

None of those are self-evident truths, and the last is sort of circular...what is the right thing?
Perhpas things like "Do unto other as you will have others do unto you"? But then you get poor people stealing from you and justifying it by saying "I don't mind if he steals from me; I've got nothing to steal!"
Ethics may be a better thing to ponder, rather than morals. If we take morals as being a set of rules for individuals to follow for the sake of society, and ethics to be a set of rules for society to follow for the sake of the individual.
? Just putting it out there.

The three examples I chose seem to be a rather salient point with which to begin. I dont care if you label it a moral or an ethical imperative, its as good a starting point as any. Morally or ethically, not killing is a perfect number one.

I agree with your critique on Loopers post. A two way street. I had exactly the same thought.