RE: Same sex marriage
May 13, 2012 at 7:06 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2012 at 7:14 am by StatCrux.)
(May 13, 2012 at 6:42 am)ElDinero Wrote:(May 13, 2012 at 5:44 am)StatCrux Wrote: Just showing that the majority opinion is wrong isn't answering the question of how you define what is right. If majority opinion is not to be used what is your basis for moral truth?
Even if nobody had an answer to that question, your suggestion that it should be based on what the majority wants is absurd in the extreme. Is that what you think should happen?
We use a thing called 'reason' to determine these things. I don't need your God to tell me what's right and wrong. So in the case of gay marriage, these are the questions I would ask:
1. Is there any reason gay people should not be allowed to marry?
2. Who would their marriage harm?
The answers to those questions are no and nobody, in that order. Unless you'd care to postulate a reason (without reference to your Bible)?
No I don't think that majority opinion should be used to define what is right, but without reference to a transcendent truth what else can you use, that is what I am asking. Reason you say? Two men can apply reason and come to polar opposite views, reason depends upon the basic premises of truth being agreed upon, so where do you find these basic premises?
As to your questions,
1.Marriage is (not exclusively but importantly) for the procreation and upbringing of children. Anything which is not (in principle) open to this is not a marriage. Note this is in principle, so examples of heterosexual marriage where the couple cannot have children does not invalidate the principle. Homosexual unions are not in principle open to procreation. This is the issue, we can redefine marriage, which is what is being proposed and which is being fought against. At the moment homosexual unions cannot be called mariage.
2.Homosexual marriage is harmful to society as it devalues the special relationship between a man and a woman which is procreative in principle. A society which sees marriage as merely a union of two persons loses the ideals of family.
(May 13, 2012 at 7:01 am)Zen Badger Wrote: How hard can it be?
"That which does not harm others"
All of these sins which your petty god abhors.
Yet the impact on other people??
Zero.
Yet pedophile priests? That's ok.
But for people to agree with that they have to have common premises first. For example why should I not harm others? If its beneficial to me and my community, so I don't have to agree with your basic premise, so how do you persuade me that I am wrong? its easy to say "dont harm others" but why the hell not if its in my interest? History proves that humans are by nature agressive, selfish and ruthless. It is not our intrinsic nature to be kind.
