(May 13, 2012 at 5:18 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 5:06 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: Majority does not equal the right thing like: eat shit, 12trn flies can't be wrong. I am sad by this, but it is a minor set back.

That's interesting...how do you define "the right thing" regarding moral issues then? If not by majority of opinion? Are you saying that there is an objective "right thing" independent of majority opinion?

The majority of people in some countries used to segregate other races and keep slaves - you can hardly say that is right can you?

People should have equality no matter what the opinion of the majority is.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:18 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 5:06 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: Majority does not equal the right thing like: eat shit, 12trn flies can't be wrong. I am sad by this, but it is a minor set back.

That's interesting...how do you define "the right thing" regarding moral issues then? If not by majority of opinion? Are you saying that there is an objective "right thing" independent of majority opinion?

umm yep, look at time woman were fighting for there rights the majority were against it or Nazi Germany the majority of Germans were for the 3rd Reich.

(May 13, 2012 at 5:28 am)Tobie Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 5:18 am)StatCrux Wrote: That's interesting...how do you define "the right thing" regarding moral issues then? If not by majority of opinion? Are you saying that there is an objective "right thing" independent of majority opinion?

The majority of people in some countries used to segregate other races and keep slaves - you can hardly say that is right can you?

People should have equality no matter what the opinion of the majority is.

That isn't answering the question, you're merely stating an historical observation, again i ask, how do you define what is right if not by majority opinion? Don't just give examples of what you think is wrong.

---

(May 13, 2012 at 5:30 am)Gooders1002 Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 5:18 am)StatCrux Wrote: That's interesting...how do you define "the right thing" regarding moral issues then? If not by majority of opinion? Are you saying that there is an objective "right thing" independent of majority opinion?

umm yep, look at time woman were fighting for there rights the majority were against it or Nazi Germany the majority of Germans were for the 3rd Reich.

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?

Who says there such things as morals, there man made to help people live happy and safely when are other needs are take care of first, if there not satisfied first,for example if you were put on a island were food would only be give to 1 of you and there were 3 of you all your morals and sense of right and wrong go straight out the window as your tearing each other apart for the food like the animals you are.
Morals are trial and error and we have learned that the underdogs (currently gay people) get feed up being treated like 2nd class citizens and well want to be on a level playing field like everybody else as it in are nature as society creature that we have some sort of equal footing.

(May 13, 2012 at 6:17 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: Who says there such things as morals, there man made to help people live happy and safely when are other needs are take care of first, if there not satisfied first,for example if you were put on a island were food would only be give to 1 of you and there were 3 of you all your morals and sense of right and wrong go straight out the window as your tearing each other apart for the food like the animals you are.
Morals are trial and error and we have learned that the underdogs (currently gay people) get feed up being treated like 2nd class citizens and well want to be on a level playing field like everybody else as it in are nature as society creature that we have some sort of equal footing.

Ok, so having dodged the question of how you define what is right...now you are saying that morals don't exist, genius..first you question if morals exist, then you attempt to define the very thing you are questioning even exists! (BTW it's "they're" not "there") Are you drunk?

(May 13, 2012 at 6:25 am)StatCrux Wrote:

(May 13, 2012 at 6:17 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: Who says there such things as morals, there man made to help people live happy and safely when are other needs are take care of first, if there not satisfied first,for example if you were put on a island were food would only be give to 1 of you and there were 3 of you all your morals and sense of right and wrong go straight out the window as your tearing each other apart for the food like the animals you are.
Morals are trial and error and we have learned that the underdogs (currently gay people) get feed up being treated like 2nd class citizens and well want to be on a level playing field like everybody else as it in are nature as society creature that we have some sort of equal footing.

Ok, so having dodged the question of how you define what is right...now you are saying that morals don't exist, genius..first you question if morals exist, then you attempt to define the very thing you are questioning even exists! (BTW it's "they're" not "there") Are you drunk?

No tired, long night, no sleep.

(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)?

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.

(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.

(May 13, 2012 at 7:06 am)StatCrux Wrote: 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.

Devalues the 'special relationship'
yer right Straight people can have just for fun weddings then devoice them in under an hour. What ever Special about marriage went out the window about 10-15 years ago. And idealy of family? that were lots of different types of family, single parent, m/f familys, M/M or F/F familys mote family's in the bible were M/FFFF times up to 1000.
Straight people can have 20 marriages and your denying a gay couple one. The whole permant nuclear family thing went out the window, in fact there rare these days in 1st world contries at least and you be dames to find a nuclear family that's had more one or more devoices