re: Was Gay Marriage a Slippery Slope?

quote:

---

So? That's still incredibly subjective and people will have different views of "harm" and "consenting" based on their personal morality. Is a child harmed by watching 2 consenting adults screw in the park? Or by you walking around naked? We apparently think so because that's illegal and I don't see anybody protesting about religion being crammed down their throat. Can a 13 year old consent to sex with a 20 year old? People disagree on those things; you still must have moral norms (majority norms) to have a societal structure. Not because it will always produce the best society, but simply because there's no other pragmatic way to do it.

---

It’s weird that you try and justify a bunch of thing almost no one disagrees on to try make your arguement.

A 13 year old is a child. Their brain isn’t formed, their body isn’t fully formed and they don’t have the life experience and knowledge to make the decision. To have sex with an adult.

Two grown men getting married isn’t the same things. The know what they’re doing. You just don’t like it.

That’s not a reason to stop it.

I think people can be incredibly great and awful regardless of religion. Just look at manifest destiny or the crusades.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

Gallup: May 19th, 2015 60% of Americans support gay marriage.

SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage in June 2015.

I will agree with you that I think this was legislating from the bench and should have been done through the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.

---

I must be misremembering then, since even California voted against proposition 8, though that was a few years prior.

I'll concede this point.

quote:

---

And your own statement about how its harmful for the minority to push their morality on the majority.

---

But to them, my statement is nothing but another opinion, which is all it can possibly be under their own stated worldview.

quote:

---

Incorrect, there's no hierarchy of rights diagram that we can look at to rank rights when they conflict. You could just as easily place the right to practice your religion over someone else's right not to be discriminated against by the federal government as you could the reverse.

---

This is my point. Because we don't don't have a stated hierarchy of rights, it opens the door to choose one over the other, and we are seeing more and more instances of the rights of homosexuals taking priority over the rights of those who hold to religious convictions. So yes, it automatically put the two at odds with one another because they are contradictory by nature and it requires judges to determine which should win out, so to speak.

quote:

---

So you think if gay marriage wasn't allowed, those gay people would just marry the opposite sex and have children? Gay marriage didn't invent gay people. They still existed and still shunned heterosexual relationships (didn't have children).

---

Not true. Plenty of homosexuals were married to someone of the opposite sex and had children. It was normative back when homosexuality was not tolerated.

quote:

---

Why not? One of your points of contention with gay couples was that they didn't procreate. There are other non-homosexual members of our society that do not procreate either... How are they not harming society as well? And if they are, should we be enacting laws to prevent this harm?

---

It's not comparable because a single heterosexual person can still find a mate, get married, and have children, as a rule. A homosexual couple is agreeing to enter into a relationship where the rule is that they cannot naturally procreate with one other. My issue was that the natural state of a homosexual relationship is that they cannot procreate. It's harmful to society because it encourages both the lack of reproduction as the rule for those relationships as well as a less than ideal family paradigm if they adopt or go with artificial insemination.

quote:

---

What an absurd example. Pretty sure the Cathlic Chruch has enough blood on it's hands to counter your example here.

---

It's not absurd at all. You just don't understand my point yet.

My point isn't that his worldview was bad because he did evil things. My point is that his evil actions could logically flow from his worldview. Any atrocities committed by professing Christians are acting inconsistently with their stated worldview, which is living according to the scriptures and the law of God.

Atheism removes objective ethics and human value and dignity. Therefore, for an atheist, there isn't an objective reason why they shouldn't rape, steal, and murder if that's what they want to do. They can do those things while acting consistently with their atheistic worldview. A professing Christian who rapes, steals, and murders is acting inconsistently with their stated worldview. That's my point.

quote:

---

It's called basic morals, society doesn't need a religous figure to tell the how to live. A society can prosper just fine without religion.

---

Where do these "basic morals" come from?

And societies can live however they want and do whatever they want to do to each other in an atheistic worldview and not incur any legitimate condemnation. A nation like Germany can go along with genocide if it works for them. A society like Iran can support the subjugation of women and homosexuals and not incur any legitimate condemnation if it works for them... according to what you're stating. The fact that such societies are condemned goes against the stated worldview of atheists who recognize an objective sense of morality while not having a rational basis for an objective moral standard.

quote:

---

That's not a very sufficient answer because it can't be proven. I can make the claim that the reason for such is because a Golden Pengiin God does something similar neither can actually be proven.

---

My worldview makes sense of these things and I do have a coherent answer for these situations and questions within my worldview. I'm pointing out to you that you don't have a coherent and intelligible answer for it. So far, you've merely stated that people just know right from wrong. That doesn't really answer the question of "why" or "what is the standard for this moral standard"?

quote:

---

Only because you're condemning others simply for who they love

---

I'm condemning them because they are violating God's law without regard to whether or not what they are doing is acceptable to Him.

Even so, you missed my point. You said that you aren't letting your personal beliefs dictate how others live and I said that you're trying to dictate how I live by arguing the validity of my beliefs and opinions. I was pointing out that you are acting inconsistently with what you professed about yourself.

quote:

---

I'm not dictating anything, I am against people forcing impeding the rights of others

---

You're arguing against me. Why? Are you trying to change my mind? If so, why? Why do you care what I believe if you don't want to force your beliefs on me? Why wouldn't you just let me say what I want to say and believe what I want to believe and do what I want to do? Wouldn't that be living consistently with what you professed by saying you don't dictate to others what they should do?

But more importantly, why are you against people impeding the rights of others? What is your basis for thinking impeding rights is a bad thing? Is it just your opinion? If so, why should you care? I've got an objective basis for human dignity and value, which is the basis for rights to begin with, as well as for morality.

More industrial

quote:

---

The government’s role should at best be a referee allowing people to express their world views as best they can without harming others.

---

I don’t understand how someone could disagree with that. We don’t have to agree on what we believe, it’s an extremely personal choice, assuming it doesn’t affect those around us negatively.

If you want to believe trees are god, and your job on the planets is to plant trees, than you should feel free to plant trees whenever it’s appropriate, just not on my property. .

Bad analogy, but it sounded better in my head before I started typing it out.

quote:

---

We don’t have to agree on what we believe, it’s an extremely personal choice, assuming it doesn’t affect those around us negatively

---

People don’t all agree on what affects those around us negatively.