Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay marriage will lead to beastiality? Maybe

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 9:43:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ummmm, maybe because marriage is a contract and animals (and children) cannot enter into them.
So, until such a time when that occurs, marriage of children and animals is a ignorant fear spouted by ignorant people who don't understand what legal marriage means.

Further, what's morality got to do with anything?
Pretty sure only 3 of 10 commandments are laws.
My work here is, finally, done.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 9:43:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Ummmm, maybe because marriage is a contract and animals (and children) cannot enter into them.
So, until such a time when that occurs, marriage of children and animals is a ignorant fear spouted by ignorant people who don't understand what legal marriage means.

Further, what's morality got to do with anything?
Pretty sure only 3 of 10 commandments are laws.

You are right, I concede that under current contract law, children and animals cannot enter into contracts. It might change, but for the foreseeable future, it is this way.

However, I still stand by my argument that if we throw out our moral tradition, anything is game, including pedophilia and bestiality(without marriage). Thinking otherwise is just holding onto the same moral system that was just thrown out. If you're saying those two things (without marriage) will still not be permitted implies an unspecified moral system will take over for our current one. What will that be, and how do you reason?

Morality has everything to do with it because morals are why people say "doing this is wrong" and "doing this is OK." The Ten Commandments are not US law, I know this, but Biblical morality was the framework around which much of our country was founded.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:24:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You know someone else is really stupid when you're facepalming at just the title of their post.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:37:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

It's really only said by dipshits in the Christian far right wing...trust me: half the US will not turn to incest when gay marriage is legalized.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Oooh...continue, oh so smart person.

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

I'm pretty sure there were laws against murder and theft before the age of Christianity.

You can't go on, by the way, talking about the US as a Christian nation. The US has a secular law and it should be treated as such.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

Proof? Didn't think so.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

That's because f***ing a dog would be rape. You can't get legal consent from a dog...just saying.

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

Our culture doesn't affiliate with a religion and it never has.

Animals can't consent. Thus having sex with it would be abuse.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

You.

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

What "old basis?" You act like Christianity is as old as the universe.

I assume you think atheists are amoral...?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:40:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Same sex marriages are consensual, if somebody tries to rape a child then society will (rightly) put their head on a stake, and if someone tries to rape an animal then PETA will put their head on a stake. Consent is a very important factor in all of this and that is why bestiality will most likely not be accepted. Also America is anything but a traditional country. Our social norms have constantly been changing to reflect the general knowledge which society gains. Morals have been changing as well and in some cases (especially regarding homosexuality) are completely subjective.
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:52:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let me take something from Harder's sig:

"Before we deal with curing homosexual and heterosexual people, how about we focus on curing idiocy first?"
-Annie
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 10:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Morality has everything to do with it because morals are why people say "doing this is wrong" and "doing this is OK." The Ten Commandments are not US law, I know this, but Biblical morality was the framework around which much of our country was founded.

And Biblical morality was framed around the various accepted practices of the time, slavery included.

Sort of falls flat when taken as a whole.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 12:11:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

Whenever I see stuff like this, I think... wow... this guy has probably thought about having sex with animals.

lol
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 6:49:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Moral tradition?"

Skynet: The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc.

Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

The Fool: What about intellectual moral progress?

Do you also agree that we should still stone "Sabbath breakers" to death?

If we can reject some aspect of the Bible as being morally inferior than others, do we not do so because we have in us, at least some objective and rational understanding what constitutes morality?

Although societies are not perfectly consistent in what they consider moral is there not more or less at least generalizable pattern, we can extract from all the different moral principles?

To even understand what the word "morality", especially to translate the term in different languages, means there must be some consistency between the use of the term, and that consistency depends on a universal understanding of what constitutes moral action, even if sometimes it can be very fuzzy and misleading. This fuzziness still constitutes a generality which we can extract, refine and replicate; to arrive at a more
purified understanding of morality which can be used to support certain moral arguments and principles and reject others. Right?

And can we not with this purified, generality create standards which can be used to support certain moral arguments and principles and reject others?

Can we honestly say that somebody who does not understand what is moral, and simply acts according to a rulebook, norms, or to avoid burning in hell is morally superior than somebody who understands that intentionally and unnecessarily causing somebody else to suffer, merely for their own pleasure, is to be avoided?

If not what"s the difference between moral actions of a child, and an adult, and so why hold an adult more responsible for their moral actions then a childs?

Surely, growing up, and understanding that other people have feelings as well, is a necessary part of moral knowledge.

Do we not over time, through reasoning, learning and experience develop a knowledge which enables us to better understand how to create a combination of laws, which limit unnecessary suffering and increase life quality?

Perhaps... I think so. But who knows these things?

Against The Ideologist

Sounds like a fool's errand if you ask me..
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 7:01:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

The Fool:"Moral tradition?"

What about intellectual moral progress?

Do you also agree that we should still stone "Sabbath breakers" to death?

If we can reject some aspect of the Bible as being morally inferior than others, do we not do so because we have in us, at least some objective and rational understanding what constitutes morality?

Although societies are not perfectly consistent in what they consider moral is there not more or less at least generalizable pattern, we can extract from all the different moral principles?

To even understand what the word "morality", especially to translate the term in different languages, means there must be some consistency between the use of the term, and that consistency depends on a universal understanding of what constitutes moral action, even if sometimes it can be very fuzzy and misleading. This fuzziness still constitutes a generality which we can extract, refine and replicate; to arrive at a more
purified understanding of morality which can be used to support certain moral arguments and principles and reject others. Right?

And can we not with this purified, generality create standards which can be used to support certain moral arguments and principles and reject others?

Can we honestly say that somebody who does not understand what is moral, and simply acts according to a rulebook, norms, or to avoid burning in hell, is morally superior than somebody who understands that intentionally and unnecessarily causing somebody else to suffer, merely for their own pleasure, is to be avoided?

If not what"s the difference between moral actions of a child, and an adult, and so why hold an adult more responsible for their moral actions then a childs?

Surely, growing up, and understanding that other people have feelings as well, is a necessary part of moral knowledge.

Do we not over time, through reasoning, learning and experience develop a knowledge which enables us to better understand how to create a combination of laws, which limit unnecessary suffering and increase life quality?

Against The Ideologist

Perhaps... I think so. But who knows these things?
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 7:02:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: Oops!
<(8O)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 1:10:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: That's the good one.
http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 10:37:12 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

It's really only said by dipshits in the Christian far right wing...trust me: half the US will not turn to incest when gay marriage is legalized.


I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Oooh...continue, oh so smart person.

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

I'm pretty sure there were laws against murder and theft before the age of Christianity.

You can't go on, by the way, talking about the US as a Christian nation. The US has a secular law and it should be treated as such.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

Proof? Didn't think so.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

That's because f***ing a dog would be rape. You can't get legal consent from a dog...just saying.

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

Our culture doesn't affiliate with a religion and it never has.

Animals can't consent. Thus having sex with it would be abuse.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

You.

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

What "old basis?" You act like Christianity is as old as the universe.

I assume you think atheists are amoral...?

You miss the point. I do not assume all atheists are amoral. Some are, but many still follow strict moral guidelines because they see the practicality, and it's nice to be nice. I don't think it's going to be Orgyland instead of the United States of America if gay marriage is law. What I want to know from you is, on what basis can you tell the few wierdos who DO want to have sex with children or animals they can't?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:28:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 10:40:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
Same sex marriages are consensual, if somebody tries to rape a child then society will (rightly) put their head on a stake, and if someone tries to rape an animal then PETA will put their head on a stake. Consent is a very important factor in all of this and that is why bestiality will most likely not be accepted. Also America is anything but a traditional country. Our social norms have constantly been changing to reflect the general knowledge which society gains. Morals have been changing as well and in some cases (especially regarding homosexuality) are completely subjective.

Thank you for the reasonable response.

Questions:

Why is consent so important, and what can you appeal to to prove that it is important enough to be heeded?

You are correct that we are not in a traditional country. When I say tradition, I am talking about the traditions upon which our society is based. All men are created equal, the government is not above the law, etc. Principals that supersede cultural fluctuation to inform us what is right and wrong. The points on society's moral compass. If that compass can fluctuate, how far should it be allowed to fluctuate? Why that far and not farther or less far? What general knowledge gained by society justifies this?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 5:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 10:54:50 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Morality has everything to do with it because morals are why people say "doing this is wrong" and "doing this is OK." The Ten Commandments are not US law, I know this, but Biblical morality was the framework around which much of our country was founded.



And Biblical morality was framed around the various accepted practices of the time, slavery included.

Sort of falls flat when taken as a whole.

This is not true. Biblical morality (codified) would more specifically be the morality imparted by Moses to a race of former slaves who lived in a polytheistic culture. The Israelites did have multiple gods during their time in Egypt, then they were commanded to jettison them. Slavery, until the time of the Exodus was absolute. Mosaic Law turned it into a system of indenture to pay off debts in most cases, and slaves were even compensated with freedom if they were injured by their masters. A slave girl who was dishonored by a master was allowed to go free, and if she was kept as a wife the husband was explicitly told to treat her as any other wife. All slaves in the nation were to be freed and all debts forgiven at seven year intervals called the Year of Jubilee. Divination and fortune telling and witchcraft was heavily practiced in both Egypt and Canaan at the time, but it was expressly forbidden for these people in the midst of it. Several times throughout Moses' time the Israelites went 180 against these laws and moral principals. It was not the product of popular moral consensus.

Regardless of whether you believe in God, or that the Torah is inspired, reading Exodus and comparing it with outside history will show that the morality of the OT ran against what the culture practiced.

Similar would be the situation before the Babylonian Captivity, when the people had adopted Canaanite traditions and religion, but the Mosaic Law stayed the same.

Again, Jesus wasn't hated by the religious establishment because he went along with what everyone thought was right, and the early Christians in Rome were labeled as "haters of humanity" (Annals-Tacitus) for going against what was culturally accepted.

Your stated position sort of falls flat when taken in historical context.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 6:13:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_Hill,

Thank you also for your response.

You, sir, are actually getting to the meat of this more quickly than others. Ok, we say we're making intellectual moral progress. What benchmark are we using to determine whether we're going forward, back, or nowhere? Less suffering? A flagellant or triathlete lives in part to suffer, and no one looks down on the triathlete, at least. Quality of life increasing is not a good enough standard. There are many people (some of whom I've met) who prefer to be drifters, who prefer to be poor, or addicted to hard drugs that are undeniably destroying their bodies. The soldier who falls on a grenade for his friends thinks nothing of his quality of life, but we generally recognize this as a VERY morally good act, but this does nothing for his quality of life.

How can atheists measure moral progress forward or back?

How is the worth of a man measured? How much use he is to a user? How much pleasure he gets? How quickly he can end his life? How much power he can exercise? How impressive he is to others? How much stuff he can get?

What I'm asking is no different than Friedrich Nietzshe:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"
...

There are only two possible conclusions: God lives and morals are fastened under his sovereignty, or there is no God, and there is nothing on which to base any transcendent right and wrong, and whoever has the most influence will tell you what you can and can't do.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 1:08:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?
What part of "consenting adult people (ie : human beings)" do you not understand?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 1:40:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

There are only two possible conclusions: God lives and morals are fastened under his sovereignty, or there is no God, and there is nothing on which to base any transcendent right and wrong, and whoever has the most influence will tell you what you can and can't do.

Are you sure those are the only two options? I was talking about this in another thread, that being societies come and go, those that collapsed took what 'immoralities' they practiced with them. That is to say, society has its own little laws of 'natural selection'. Child rape? Falls out. Slavery? Falls out, or adapts. As time marched on, humans developed and retain ideas of what it means to be human, inherent rights, etc. Some of the most rudimentary ideas developed into a morality, and we later codified it in law.

At the most basic understanding of human morality, we appreciate that you don't act on some one else unless they either agree to it, or we are enforcing social/legal order of some kind. (this probably stemmed from the logical conclusion that such actions could indeed be done back on you with the same lack of justification)

The more exaggerated such an action becomes, the more immoral it becomes. The most heinous acts derive from greed being slaked on those whom have no ability to defend themselves, those without power or means. We also find exception with attrocities being committed for no or farcical reasons.

Some degree of question has to arrise: "The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality" --- Does this logically mean that there is nothing left to condemn bestiality, and why did it condemn homosexuality in the first place? If all are to be treated equally before the law (ideally), how does being homosexual some how cause one to be unequal?

"Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc." ---- Biblical morals are not spontaneous. The authors wrote in what was working for other cultures too, not lieing, not stealing, not killing, these were NOT novel concepts, but just because the religion of other cultures and societies were deemed to be a cult, then myth, it doesn't mean the rules they operated around were no less real.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:28:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 6:13:46 PM, Skynet wrote:
The_Fool_on_the_Hill,

Thank you also for your response.

You, sir, are actually getting to the meat of this more quickly than others. Ok, we say we're making intellectual moral progress. What benchmark are we using to determine whether we're going forward, back, or nowhere? Less suffering? A flagellant or triathlete lives in part to suffer, and no one looks down on the triathlete, at least. Quality of life increasing is not a good enough standard. There are many people (some of whom I've met) who prefer to be drifters, who prefer to be poor, or addicted to hard drugs that are undeniably destroying their bodies. The soldier who falls on a grenade for his friends thinks nothing of his quality of life, but we generally recognize this as a VERY morally good act, but this does nothing for his quality of life.

How can atheists measure moral progress forward or back?

How is the worth of a man measured? How much use he is to a user? How much pleasure he gets? How quickly he can end his life? How much power he can exercise? How impressive he is to others? How much stuff he can get?

What I'm asking is no different than Friedrich Nietzshe:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"
...
l.

There are only two possible conclusions: God lives and morals are fastened under his sovereignty, or there is no God, and there is nothing on which to base any transcendent right and wrong, and whoever has the most influence will tell you what you can and can't do.

The Fool: I am quite busy as of late. I will answer this when I get some time to answer it fully.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:33:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 1:08:53 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?
What part of "consenting adult people (ie : human beings)" do you not understand?

To play devil's advocate: What a high moral horse you have! What gives you the right to say they have to be consenting? How can you judge the rapist?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 1:40:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

There are only two possible conclusions: God lives and morals are fastened under his sovereignty, or there is no God, and there is nothing on which to base any transcendent right and wrong, and whoever has the most influence will tell you what you can and can't do.



Are you sure those are the only two options? I was talking about this in another thread, that being societies come and go, those that collapsed took what 'immoralities' they practiced with them. That is to say, society has its own little laws of 'natural selection'. Child rape? Falls out. Slavery? Falls out, or adapts. As time marched on, humans developed and retain ideas of what it means to be human, inherent rights, etc. Some of the most rudimentary ideas developed into a morality, and we later codified it in law.

At the most basic understanding of human morality, we appreciate that you don't act on some one else unless they either agree to it, or we are enforcing social/legal order of some kind. (this probably stemmed from the logical conclusion that such actions could indeed be done back on you with the same lack of justification)

The more exaggerated such an action becomes, the more immoral it becomes. The most heinous acts derive from greed being slaked on those whom have no ability to defend themselves, those without power or means. We also find exception with attrocities being committed for no or farcical reasons.

Some degree of question has to arrise: "The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality" --- Does this logically mean that there is nothing left to condemn bestiality, and why did it condemn homosexuality in the first place? If all are to be treated equally before the law (ideally), how does being homosexual some how cause one to be unequal?

"Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc." ---- Biblical morals are not spontaneous. The authors wrote in what was working for other cultures too, not lieing, not stealing, not killing, these were NOT novel concepts, but just because the religion of other cultures and societies were deemed to be a cult, then myth, it doesn't mean the rules they operated around were no less real.

We're operating on two different ideologies. You view the Bible as a fabrication of man to provide justification for social order. I view the Bible as actual justification for social order because it was laid down by the power of transcendent God. Our disagreement may hinge on whether or not the Bible is truly inspired, or if God exists, depending on your belief.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 10:08:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

Seriously now, don't you think that if that was a serious or logical argument that the (I am sure QUITE capable) attorneys representing the anti same-sex marriage position would have raised it by now? Or are you smarter and more legally astute than they are?

It's a strawman argument and they know they would be laughed out of court, just as you should be laughed out of this forum.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 1:12:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No, because, unlike humans, animals cannot render informed, explicit consent.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
markalantrimeloni
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 4:14:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender].

This isn't an issue of right or wrong/moral or immoral. This is an issue of legal and illegal. Whether something is legal or not can be based on anything. I only hope it's a majority decision. But communities can have their own laws as well. No one is forced to live anywhere.

I may not like marriages of old people to very young ones or animals, but it's not my decision to judge whether it is right or wrong for someone else. I make those personal decisions in my own life and don't want someone making them for me. So I can't make them for someone else. I can, however, vote a law into place restricting the activity or eliminating it altogether by fines or imprisonment.

The current laws state marrying people beneath a certain age and animals is illegal. In order to get them overturned, a person has to work to change public opinion and get enough support to change them.

Just because gays get the right to marriage doesn't mean the other two categories of marriage you mention will have any more chance of becoming legal. All people have the right to have their beliefs heard and voted on. If a majority wants a law changed, then it will eventually be changed regardless of how anyone who opposes it feels.

There is no way gay marriage leads to other forms of marriage where the act is illegal. The act has to first be made legal.

And in the end how does this effect someone that isn't directly involved in the act? They have no personal stake in the outcome. I know I don't want to marry someone very young or an animal. And I would find it disturbing personally to see in public. But either we all have the freedom to choose or we don't. Still no one said laws were fair.
Treat Everyone as Equals. Base nothing on "RAG" (race, age, or gender) these are meaningless.

Desperation brings out the best in people. Stop public funding and let people survive on their own. Money in the hands of the government is wasted. Money in the hands of private citizens is well spent.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 4:39:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

This is easily answered especially when it comes to sexual activity in peadophilia and bestiality. Children cannot truly consent to marriage or sex because they are too young to understand the implications of it (hence the age of consent...). And animals cannot give any kind of consent at all.

Continuing further, sexual intercourse between adults and children, and adults and animals could cause serious physical damage internally to the animals and children. Regarding homosexuality, both adults can give true consent and homosexuality is realistically no more harmful than heterosexuality.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 9:06:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 10:08:21 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

Seriously now, don't you think that if that was a serious or logical argument that the (I am sure QUITE capable) attorneys representing the anti same-sex marriage position would have raised it by now? Or are you smarter and more legally astute than they are?

It's a strawman argument and they know they would be laughed out of court, just as you should be laughed out of this forum.

You speak as if you have an answer so obvious, it isn't worth detailing, so you don't. So the question remains unanswered, and I'm unconvinced you have one.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 9:24:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 4:14:19 AM, markalantrimeloni wrote:
I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender].

This isn't an issue of right or wrong/moral or immoral. This is an issue of legal and illegal. Whether something is legal or not can be based on anything. I only hope it's a majority decision. But communities can have their own laws as well. No one is forced to live anywhere.

I may not like marriages of old people to very young ones or animals, but it's not my decision to judge whether it is right or wrong for someone else. I make those personal decisions in my own life and don't want someone making them for me. So I can't make them for someone else. I can, however, vote a law into place restricting the activity or eliminating it altogether by fines or imprisonment.

The current laws state marrying people beneath a certain age and animals is illegal. In order to get them overturned, a person has to work to change public opinion and get enough support to change them.

Just because gays get the right to marriage doesn't mean the other two categories of marriage you mention will have any more chance of becoming legal. All people have the right to have their beliefs heard and voted on. If a majority wants a law changed, then it will eventually be changed regardless of how anyone who opposes it feels.

There is no way gay marriage leads to other forms of marriage where the act is illegal. The act has to first be made legal.

And in the end how does this effect someone that isn't directly involved in the act? They have no personal stake in the outcome. I know I don't want to marry someone very young or an animal. And I would find it disturbing personally to see in public. But either we all have the freedom to choose or we don't. Still no one said laws were fair.

Do you recognize morality that transcends popular opinion? It sounds like probably not. Laws should be based on actual right and wrong, otherwise, how do we say they are just or unjust? To know what that is, you need a source of knowledge of right and wrong outside our own opinions. Maybe I should write the next part in all caps so others notice?

IF IT WERE UP TO ME AND WHAT I FELT LIKE, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T CARE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY OR REVENGE, ETC.

But it's not, because God exists, and he sets the standards regardless of how I feel.
The question here is: If you reject transcendent standards of right and wrong, what would stop a population who feels like codifying dog-man marriage, or whatever other strange things into law? Consent? For mutual consent to hold, you have to either convince enough people, or enough of the right people it's what they want, or what they SHOULD do. Without morals, the SHOULD is gone. Some people (rapists) don't care. Rape is more common some places than others. If being a rapist is popular enough in a place, what's to keep it from being legal, or acceptable? Since it's what the majority want, you'd need moral conviction on a personal level to roll it back.

That's also why codifying parts of the Bible doesn't work unless people are on board for it personally.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2014 9:31:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/17/2014 4:39:04 AM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 12/1/2014 9:27:04 PM, Skynet wrote:
The gay marriage thing is still a hot topic in the US, and the fights are still going on in the government and society, but the excitement has worn off so that I don't see discussions on this argument as often. We've heard the argument that if we allow gays to marry [other gays of the same gender], there's no stopping anyone from marrying anyone and anything they want. We've heard the counter argument that this is slippery slope fallacy. Maybe. It depends on what you mean, and how you're arguing.

I for one, DO believe that other weird stuff like pedophilia and bestiality being codified to count as legal marriage IS a possible result of the logic that allows gays to marry [other gays of the same gender]. Here's why:

Unalienable rights and traditional marriage and most societal morality in the US and much of Europe has been based on Biblical morals, the fear of God, the Ten Commandments, etc. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't murder. Consider everyone equal before the law [ideally]. Innocent before human court until proven guilty. (If you have no idea where one or more of these are in the Bible, just ask and I'll find it.) Homosexuality is an abomination, Marriage is sacred.

There are some people who claim to be, and possibly are Christians who support or are gay, but the position requires rejection of a straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the majority of gays are less likely to have a religious affiliation.

So we have to throw out the Bible or at least parts of it "we" don't like to justify homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. But of course bestiality will continue to be wrong!

But why? The basis for our culture's moral tradition has just been removed. The same moral tradition that condemned homosexuality, condemns bestiality. So...why not? If you really feel like it and you're in love, it's fair is the argument for homosexuality. People LOVE their pets. So what would be basis for morality that would replace God that would condemn bestiality if your neighbor really REALLY loved their pet? Now don't think that I'm saying if a few people are allowed to be openly gay, everyone will be gay next year, and in the next five, we'll all be practicing pedophilia and bestiality. The majority of people in a permissive culture will probably still be mainly attracted to their own species, even the opposite gender.

But what's to stop someone who's so inclined? Who's to judge? Iron fisted government control?

After you've rejected the old basis for right and wrong, what can possibly compete with passion?

This is easily answered especially when it comes to sexual activity in peadophilia and bestiality. Children cannot truly consent to marriage or sex because they are too young to understand the implications of it (hence the age of consent...). And animals cannot give any kind of consent at all.

Continuing further, sexual intercourse between adults and children, and adults and animals could cause serious physical damage internally to the animals and children. Regarding homosexuality, both adults can give true consent and homosexuality is realistically no more harmful than heterosexuality.

The whole concept of consent and not doing harm requires a moral that says it is wrong to violate will or body of another. What is the basis for this moral framework in your worldview? Why not do harm if you feel like it?

(I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, thanks for responding politely.)
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.