Truth - the New Hate Speech

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon jaywill. Can you actually answer the questions? You neglected to directly answer either of them. I'll repeat them:

Do you think it just to deny a group of people from being allowed to be in loving committed relationships because you don't like the idea of a word [marriage] being redefined?

Just answer the question. If you believe ...[text shortened]... is just to deny homosexuals the use of the word "marriage", then explicitly state your reasons.

We can redefine the word marriage to include homosexual or any other type of relationship if we wish. However, I doubt that makes it right in the sight of God.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Let me turn your argument around and challenge you to consider the flip side. What would you think of a Christian wishing to avoided personal responsibility by ascribing blame for his indiscretions to the Devil? In other words, instead of holding himself personally responsible (to God) he could always in effect be saying "The Devil made me do it."

By t ...[text shortened]... pectations aren't too high. So if I fail at getting enough sleep today, there's always tomorrow.

You make a valid observation, but think you highlighted yourself the most pertinent disqualifier when you said:

"For this comparison to work I must necessarily assume the gay person would be suffering from an assault on his conscience just as the religious person would be, otherwise the comparison makes no sense."

Seeing this issue, as i do, from an atheist's perspective, and believing (as i do) that people do not choose to be gay, then being such is not 'sinful' (as a Christian might see it). In other words i do not believe a gay person needs to 'excuse' being gay (as he was made that way) anymore than i need to excuse or apologise (or feel guilty) for say, being left handed.
Everyone deserves the chance to be themselves, to be happy. Somebody else being gay doesn't damage my own existence, and i don't think my conventional marriage is in any way threatened by more unconventional marriages. Live and let live i say.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You make a valid observation, but think you highlighted yourself the most pertinent disqualifier when you said:

"For this comparison to work I must necessarily assume the gay person would be suffering from an assault on his conscience just as the religious person would be, otherwise the comparison makes no sense."

Seeing this issue, as i do, fr ...[text shortened]... nal marriage is in any way threatened by more unconventional marriages. Live and let live i say.

The moral status of an action is not always based on whether it's a choice or not.

I would think that murder is still wrong even if committed by a sociopath who is 'wired' to feel no remorse at human suffering. Or that child molestation is wrong even if committed by one who is 'wired' to be sexually attracted to children.

To me, the moral status of homosexual acts should be based primarily on Consent between those who can give consent, i.e., human adults.

This perhaps echoes googlefudge's point about the 'choice vs. wired' argument being useful to gain progress in gaining rights for homosexuals, but ultimately being unsatisfactory as a strong argument in and of itself, in the end.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The moral status of an action is not always based on whether it's a choice or not.

I agree, but I think I should add that it does affect how we punish offenders.

To me, the moral status of homosexual acts should be based primarily on Consent between those who can give consent, i.e., human adults.
I think this comes down to what sorts of morality (or rather immorality) should be legally defined or prevented. I agree with your conclusion, but you might want to flesh out why you are making the conclusion.

This perhaps echoes googlefudge's point about the 'choice vs. wired' argument being useful to gain progress in gaining rights for homosexuals, but ultimately being unsatisfactory as a strong argument in and of itself, in the end.
I agree. Whether or not homosexuality is hard-wired is really irrelevant to whether or not gay marriage should be legal.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The moral status of an action is not always based on whether it's a choice or not.

I would think that murder is still wrong even if committed by a sociopath who is 'wired' to feel no remorse at human suffering. Or that child molestation is wrong even if committed by one who is 'wired' to be sexually attracted to children.

To me, the moral status ...[text shortened]... osexuals, but ultimately being unsatisfactory as a strong argument in and of itself, in the end.

Yes, you are right of course. Consent is a major factor, but then that is also true in straight relationships.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I wonder if consequences like this is why Moses made such strict sexual laws.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree, but I think I should add that it does affect how we punish offenders.

[b]To me, the moral status of homosexual acts should be based primarily on Consent between those who can give consent, i.e., human adults.
I think this comes down to what sorts of morality (or rather immorality) should be legally defined or prevented. I agree with your ...[text shortened]... homosexuality is hard-wired is really irrelevant to whether or not gay marriage should be legal.[/b]

I agree that moral culpability is affected by a person's capacity to choose, and capacity to distinguish right from wrong. There are probably some murders and pedophiles who actually think there is nothing whatsoever wrong about those actions - so they may get confined to some sort of insane asylum or ward for the mentally ill, to prevent further harming of innocents, but not treated in the same way as someone who knows it's wrong yet does it anyway.

Legally, the 'consent' standard should apply to all. I only mentioned 'homosexuals' in context with the current discussion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Experimentation in psychology is usually not the preferred method of learning about behavior in humans, unless the experiments do not actively permanently change the subject's behavior patterns. I think the best evidence we have for what you speak of is in case studies. Clearly, abuse in early childhood (even in late childhood or even young adulthood, depending on the trauma induced) can be a trigger for all sorts of behaviors, some more pathological than others. And these behaviors run the gamut, because people are different. Some young girls may change their sexual orientation because of this type of trauma, while others may become hyper-sexual. What happens in the molding process is often determined by the material one starts with, of course.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Difficult to argue with that.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I couldn't agree more with this.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You make a valid observation, but think you highlighted yourself the most pertinent disqualifier when you said:

"For this comparison to work I must necessarily assume the gay person would be suffering from an assault on his conscience just as the religious person would be, otherwise the comparison makes no sense."

Seeing this issue, as i do, fr ...[text shortened]... nal marriage is in any way threatened by more unconventional marriages. Live and let live i say.

How is that a disqualifier? I'm simply pointing out and acknowledging how it wouldn't apply to someone who isn't bothered by their own behavior.

It's a necessary condition that doesn't (because it can't) cancel out the main focus of the argument. If I didn't know better (and maybe I don't) it sounds as though you're thinking in terms of absolutes here. The absolute being that my argument should apply to each and every possible situation, even if it doesn't apply, wouldn't apply or couldn't apply. Without the qualifier someone could use the example of someone who isn't bothered by their own conscience as a 'disqualifying' exception. It wouldn't actually work as a disqualifier, but I was hopping to skip passed that possible objection so as to not have to stop and go back to explain it... but it seems my effort to save some time and effort was in itself a waste of time. 😞

Anyway, a somewhat extreme example to illustrate what I mean would be someone who does as he pleases with absolutely no regard to how it might impact anyone else. Prisons are filled with lots of folks like this, people who spend all day feeling sorry for themselves but couldn't care less what affect they have on anyone else.

Maybe you've been lucky enough to have never crossed paths with someone like this, but I can assure you there are people who demonstrate very little to no empathy, and whose consciences don't seem to be at all bothered by anything they do. They don't appear to be bothered by what their actions might directly do to others, or bothered by the idea their actions might indirectly have a negative impact on the lives of others... like some fool driving recklessly down the street, and who is completely oblivious to other drivers and pedestrians.

Originally posted by lemon lime
How is that a disqualifier? I'm simply pointing out and acknowledging how it wouldn't apply to someone who isn't bothered by their own behavior.

It's a necessary condition that doesn't (because it can't) cancel out the main focus of the argument. If I didn't know better (and maybe I don't) it sounds as though you're thinking in terms of absolutes here. ...[text shortened]... ittle to no empathy, and whose consciences don't seem to be at all bothered by anything they do.

Yes the Ghastly one is a Sith Lord and only Sith Lords deal in absolutes!