Homosexual marriage

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

For you atheistic chaps, one of your primary speed bumps is that "you shouldn't do something to someone if they don't want you to do it, that you should mind your own business." And obviously the reasoning behind this is because having those things done to you would not be fun, especially if you're a clown and the Government decides to intern you (sorry, I had to bring that back).

That's not a bad reason, but if you felt like it, you could easily waive that curtain aside and not care whether it is unpleasant or not. It may not feel good to be murdered, but maybe it does feel good to murder for some people.

You left out the rest of the reasoning: the repercussions of murduring someone. We don't do things to other people that we wouldn't like done to ourselves because we live in a society that will punish us if we do.

This is why things like rape and murder become so much more common during wartime, because there is often little chance of repercussion in a war torn area.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You may say that some people only think murder is bad only because the Ten Commandments said so, but also consider why God wrote it as one of the commandments in the first place. It isn't "just because", it is precisely what we feel already: that murder is just wrong, it doesn't feel good, and for christians commiting it is hard hitting on the soul indeed.

God didn't write the ten commandments. The scholars who put together that part of those religious texts weren't stupid. They knew that to appeal to the masses their "god" had to make rules that made sense to the people. The religious texts that survived the best were the ones that made the most sense for society. In fact, many biblical stories themselves draw from earlier cultures like Sumeria, taking the best from those times and fitting it to their own.

But, the existance of some good advice in the bible, or even a lot of good advice in the bible, doesn't mean that it is all good advice.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

There was no plan for Heaven in Old Testament days. Remember that Adam and Abraham were in "Hades".

Besides Old Testament times: it's just the sinful way of man to stop caring after awhile. Explain why people let themselves get deathly infections when they could easily have prevented it. Combo of sinfulness and laziness.

Ok, how can such a system be 'good', when all that keeps men from killing each other is the 'fear of God'? There are a lot of other reasons why we don't jump on each other, and far from all of them have anything to do with God.

Exactly right. It implies at least that you have no reason behind your morals than just "feel good/feel bad". So yes.
And I don't like utilitarianism, it basically is a manipulating machine a "just because" of the kind that BJ seems to attribute to us christians instead.

Manipulating machine? Seems like you've misunderstood something.

If you can't believe I have any basis for my morals...well, that's your choice. I think I do (far beyond "it feels good/bad"), but then again you don't seem to be interested.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You left out the rest of the reasoning: the repercussions of murduring someone. We don't do things to other people that we wouldn't like done to ourselves because we live in a society that will punish us if we do.

I do Not want to turn you loose into the wild... That is certainly a scary reason.

This is why things like rape and murder become so much more common during wartime, because there is often little chance of repercussion in a war torn area.

Makes you wonder how we pulled ourselves together at all, in that case.

God didn't write the ten commandments.
The scholars who put together that part of those religious texts weren't stupid. They knew that to appeal to the masses their "god" had to make rules that made sense to the people. The religious texts that survived the best were the ones that made the most sense for society. In fact, many biblical stories themselves draw from earlier cultures like Sumeria, taking the best from those times and fitting it to their own.

Now wait a min...how are we so reasonable if we're such mindless sexually driven animals?

Not all of them make sense if you wanted to do whatever you wanted. "Thou Shalt Now Covet" that is an "extra-earthly" commandment. Not exactly popular either, since the the reasoning would go "who can tell?"
I suppose it's one of those "not good advice moments" eh?

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The notion that evolution is somehow a slow improvement of all life and we are the ultimate results of it is downright silly though you hear it so often.

Love the irony; I call you one one of your system's flaws, and you account it to error. Which scientists are telling the truth? The ones the believe that through evolution man will eventually become an improved being, or the ones that believe that they will eventually become extinct? Or is it all a matter of conjecture?

In a word: no. But then “digression” has nothing to do with following morals or not following morals so Im not sure why you bring it up. We don’t need to “go back” to anything. We ARE animals. We have not escaped that simple truth.

I don't see any animals setting up systems of morals, laws, worship. I don't see any creativity on the part of animals at all: art, lore, even history are all irrelevant to an animal. Humans are NOT animals. There is something different operating inside of him--something that spurs him to creativity, to exalt a thing or to scorn a thing, to believeing there is something higher than himself, to have even a fleeting notion of luck or destiny. This separates him from animals.

By what notion do you think we have “evolved a sense of right and wrong”? Are you speaking of our ability to rationalize here? Animals follow careful behavior patterns as well. Not sheer chaotic randomness. And humans when it benefits them will act in virtually any way imaginable.

I do not think we have evolved a sense of right and wrong. I was using evolution in my argument because Falagar said

He evolved intelligence and creativity, abilities which, among other things, allow man to put him/herself in other people's situation - empathy - and to see long-time consequences - laws and morality....

I also do not purport that animals are chaotic in their behavior. Nature itself abides by laws and absolutes: gravity, for instance. It makes no sense to me that spirituality and morality should not be governed by laws and absolutes as well.

Are you implying the evolution caused you to believe that gays shouldn’t be able to marry? Your concepts of morals and evolution are truly a mess.

No. Like I said, I was building an argument on the idea that man evolved his morality. You're RIGHT. It is a mess.
And to those who say that man did not evolve his morals, I might ask: Where then did he get them?

Religious morals aren’t at issue here. You can believe all you want to believe in terms of what you were taught THROUGH your religion. The problem is when you decide to impose your will on certain people simply because of your religious beliefs. Then, yes, you become by definition a discriminator.

But you are asking for a secular reason why I would reasonably vote against gay marriage. You say that religious grounds is not enough. I might even be inclined to agree with you there. What I am trying to show you is that my morals are not founded on a religious system, and that my reason for believeing homosexuality is wrong is not simply because some book told me so. It is because GOD says so. The God who created you; the God of not only the spiritual but also the physical and the scientific. Unfortunately, perhaps, God is not only the God of the religious, but also of the secular. 'God makes the rain fall on the good as well as the wicked,' is a proverb often enough repeated.
You see, Adam and Eve were told not to eat a fruit. Because they did, mankind fell from perfection. WHY? Because they ate a fruit? What is wrong with eating a fruit? It surely did not hurt anyone, including the willing parties that ate it. No, but because they rebelled against God. Not some moral system, but their Maker. God makes some choices purely choices; to simply choose to do as He says, or to not do as He says. It is possible that homosexuality is one of those choices: maybe it doesn't harm anyone (and that, I suppose, is debatable). But God said No. And I might repeat that God is the God of the secular as well as the religious.

Now, I do not wish to impose my 'religion' on anyone. Like I said, it is your choice to even believe that God exists. If the people of this my democratic nation (the US of A) vote that gays can marry, I cannot stop them. But my vote will be against it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Ok, how can such a system be 'good', when all that keeps men from killing each other is the 'fear of God'? There are a lot of other reasons why we don't jump on each other, and far from all of them have anything to do with God.

Perhaps, something other than God may keep someone from killing another person (I believe in Free Will afterall...)

Manipulating machine? Seems like you've misunderstood something.

Basically, I don't kill you, you don't kill me, let's have babies etc and be happy.

If you can't believe I have any basis for my morals...well, that's your choice. I think I do (far beyond "it feels good/bad"), but then again you don't seem to be interested.

I'm not ready to believe that they are morals in the true sense, only practical guidelines for making it in the world.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

how are we so reasonable if we're such mindless sexually driven animals?

Because, unlike other animals, we are not "mindless". It goes back to the real source of all morality, and religion for that matter, which is really just a set of rules intended to tie a society together: the need to live with one another.

Morality has always been a balancing act between doing what you want and doing what is good for the survival of society and oneself. And it has evolved in many ways over the years and will continue to.

[Falagar]

Basically, I don't kill you, you don't kill me, let's have babies etc and be happy.

Nope.

I'm not ready to believe that they are morals in the true sense, only practical guidelines for making it in the world.

That's what morals are, simply put. Christianity could be simplified to "only practical guidelines for making it to the afterlife" (ethics is the field for the underlying assumptions and thoughts).

Perhaps, something other than God may keep someone from killing another person (I believe in Free Will afterall...)

Wouldn't have been many humans left if there wasn't.

Love the irony; I call you one one of your system's flaws, and you account it to error. Which scientists are telling the truth? The ones the believe that through evolution man will eventually become an improved being, or the ones that believe that they will eventually become extinct? Or is it all a matter of conjecture?

Ehm. What has this got to do with the scientific theory of evolution? Evolution occurs in reaction to the changing of the surroundings.

What I am trying to show you is that my morals are not founded on a religious system, and that my reason for believeing homosexuality is wrong is not simply because some book told me so. It is because GOD says so

But the notion of 'God' is founded in a religious system.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Nope.

Yes they are, and don't deny it; since that's what you reduce mine to below

That's what morals are

Aha! So you admit...

, simply put. Christianity could be simplified to "only practical guidelines for making it to the afterlife" (ethics is the field for the underlying assumptions and thoughts).

Yes, but we will not be immoral in the afterlife either, since we believe that God is the essence good in the first place.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yes they are, and don't deny it; since that's what you reduce mine to below

Ehm. Lots of world views can be reduced to such a statement. I was simplifying yours to show that everything can be simplified. Especially since your simplifaction doesn't really say anything of how utilitarianism works (and you haven't even mentioned the others...).

Aha! So you admit...


Yes, but we will not be immoral in the afterlife either, since we believe that God is the essence good in the first place.

I didn't do it, I swear - 'twas Bob Marley. I thought the sheriff to be a rather nice chap.

It's still a set of rules supposed to guide you in this life though, the difference being how we perceive the world.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Ehm. Lots of world views can be reduced to such a statement. I was simplifying yours to show that everything can be simplified. Especially since your simplifaction doesn't really say anything of how utilitarianism works (and you haven't said anything about the others either...).


I didn't do it, I swear - 'twas Bob Marley. I thought the sheriff to be a rather nice chap.

It's still a set of rules supposed to guide you in this life though, the difference being how we perceive the world.

Of course they are, but we disagree that they are JUST that. I believe in the soul, afterall

Bob Marley became an Orthodox Christian (under the Ethiopian Orthodox Church), after a long run with Rastafarianism....though I get a feeling you were talking about the Dickens character

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

By your reasoning there should be no reason, so why is it so wrong to think homosexuality wrong? Exactly how do you justify your sense that "imposing your belief systems on others" is wrong when you don't have anything definite to watch your back? Did evolution tell you that imposing your belief systems on others is wrong?

Im speaking within the definitions of the constitutional notions of our society. That all men are created equal. That we all have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc. To say that certain people don’t get that (whether it be blacks or women or irish or jews or gays…) goes directly against this notion and IS discrimination, in this case unjust. Do you counter that?

You can THINK homosexuality is wrong all you want as ive said before. You can even speak out on it and foam at the mouth about how disgusting it is and protest funerals because of it if you really want to. That’s your right. What IM speaking of is saying to someone else they can NOT do something that you can do and not giving a sufficient reason why. THAT is unjust discrimination and shouldn’t be allowed.

And what Rosie is saying is in response to the reasoning you use, which WOULD include evolution making someone believe that homosexuality is wrong. What she's is asking is why it is 'wrong' to believe that homosexuality is wrong if it was the way nature made you? Aren't we all just matter?

We didn’t evolve to believe homosexuality is wrong… Clearly homosexuality is a natural part of nature since it occurs with continued regularity IN nature. We DID evolve to fear and loath the outsider. Which makes sense on a biological level of course. Because often times you can get killed by letting your guard down and trusting even for a second. So you associate with your own tribe and your own kin and you shout and scream and carry on and resort to violence if necessary when something foreign comes along. That’s why we have racism today… Because we are programmed in that way. Because it IS beneficial. We are a tribal war like creature. Racism is a logical repercussion of that type of life style. Ask ants. We share a lot with them. But does that mean racism is ok? Of course not. Do all aspects of evolution lead to warm fuzzy perfect things? Of course not. Racism and hatred have their purposes in nature. But to make the argument well its my nature to hate so its ok to hate is an enormous cop out. And really is completely irrelevant when it comes to the argument about gay marriage.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im speaking within the definitions of the constitutional notions of our society. That all men are created equal. That we all have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc. To say that certain people don’t get that (whether it be blacks or women or irish or jews or gays…) goes directly against this notion and IS discrimination, in this case unjust. Do you counter that?

How convenient

saying to someone else they can NOT do something that you can do and not giving a sufficient reason why. THAT is unjust discrimination and shouldn’t be allowed.

Not really, you could just continue and call it freedom of speech, and part of the pursuit of happiness.

We didn’t evolve to believe homosexuality is wrong…

You're basically admitting something here...
The point is not whether we "evolved" to be against homosexuality, it's whether "nature" if that is all there is above us, told us to be against it. In other words it may be just as "natural" to be against homosexuality as anything else.

But does that mean racism is ok? Of course not. Do all aspects of evolution lead to warm fuzzy perfect things? Of course not. Racism and hatred have their purposes in nature. But to make the argument well its my nature to hate so its ok to hate is an enormous cop out. And really is completely irrelevant when it comes to the argument about gay marriage.

Agreed, I forgot that this was even the thread for gay marriage

But you are not really giving a reason why it is wrong, from an atheistical POV, to be racist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

But how do you discern the 'inherent nature' of things? If homosexuality occurs randomly in nature, is it then not also a inherently characteristic in animals (and thus nature) that they display homosexuality, in certain situations?

You discern the inherent nature of things through reason. Your logic would necessitate that everything that happens is through nature.

Which most protestants have rejected, if I'm not much mistaken. Solo scriptura. Though it's not very relevant anyway, question answered.

Indeed. But Protestants came from the Catholic Church, and they brought what they liked from it.

I thought some denominations had reintepreted and believe it's required again? (There's also Matt 23:3 and a few others, I believe - seems to me to be an inconsistence, though I suspect you won't agree )

They have, but they're wrong.

You right, I won't agree.

That which proceeds from reason can hardly be said to be unnatural, but still not necessarily natural?

That which proceeds from reason can hardly be said to be ipso facto unnatural. Not that it cannot be natural. Reason is a part of human nature, so that things which proceed from it cannot be said because of that to be unnatural; however, it does not follow that everything which proceeds from reason is necessarily natural. Some things are, and some are not.

Exactly right. It implies at least that you have no reason behind your morals than just "feel good/feel bad". So yes.
And I don't like utilitarianism, it basically is a manipulating machine a "just because" of the kind that BJ seems to attribute to us christians instead.

Certain philosophers, in their opposition to such ethics, paint a verbal picture of pleasure sitting as a queen over all things, and all of the virtues as lowly slaves doing everything they do for the sake of pleasure. Fortitude endures unpleasantness, by Pleasure's command, that it may pass and she go on to pleasurable things. Wisdom searches for truth, solely that it may be used for Pleasure. Temperance refrains from certain things, solely that the pleasure from others might be all the greater.

We don't do things to other people that we wouldn't like done to ourselves because we live in a society that will punish us if we do.

But why does society punish you? Because it considers it to be wrong. That's circular reasoning.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But why does society punish you? Because it considers it to be wrong. That's circular reasoning.

When you take it out of context, sure.

As I explained to my good friend Hector:

Morality has always been a balancing act between doing what you want and doing what is good for the survival of society and oneself.

It has nothing to do with god, the ten commandments or any other religious text. Morality simple stems from the fact that we are a society.

All the scriptures in the world are simply expressions of what humanity has learned over the ages about living with one another, written and compiled by human beings.

We all desire pleasure, but most of us don't take it at the expense of others because it would ostracize us from the very society we all need to survive. It is in your own self interest to live as harmoniusly as possible with those around you.

Sure, there have been many examples of societies that have cast this aside, but few have survived the consequences of the few taking advantage of the larger portion of any given society.

Morality exists when it works, and it evolves over time when it does not. It's really very simply.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

When you take it out of context, sure.

As I explained to my good friend Hector:



It has nothing to do with god, the ten commandments or any other religious text. Morality simple stems from the fact that we are a society.

All the scriptures in the world are simply expressions of what humanity has learned over the ages about living with one another, written and compiled by human beings.

We all desire pleasure, but most of us don't take it at the expense of others because it would ostracize us from the very society we all need to survive. It is in your own self interest to live as harmoniusly as possible with those around you.

Sure, there have been many examples of societies that have cast this aside, but few have survived the consequences of the few taking advantage of the larger portion of any given society.

Morality exists when it works, and it evolves over time when it does not. It's really very simply.

Hear, hear!!

[Aquilonis]

I'm not sure if this has been said already, I didn't read all 46 pages, but here is my idea on homosexual marriage in America.

Personally, I think it should be allowed, and here is why. Marriage in America, from the perspective of the government, is a nonreligious matter. It has to be, because religion is outside the scope of government. When two people get married, the only thing the government cares about is the civil portion. What religion you are, and how you do the ceremony, doesn't matter. It's the civil portion.

If you are an adherent to any particular religious sect, and your sect does not allow gay marriage as sinful, your church does not have to perform them- Congress does not make you, and the gay men or women would probably not want you to either. No law prevents that, no law should. However, if two gay men sign papers saying they want to be joined in marriage, religion has no part in that either. You cannot use the excuse that it is frowned upon by God, because this is a secular nation. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all- if heterosexuals can do it, homosexuals can do it too, it's only fair, and without religion you don't have much of a case against it.

Also, to end, I'm sure people have said this, but what in the world is the problem with two gay guys signing papers in a courthouse? It's certainly not my problem, it doesn't break my leg, and it doesn't break any fundamentalist legs either. Honestly, what I think the fundamentalists are doing here are poking their righteous noses into people's business like they own marriage. They do not, it is an institution that is multireligious and multiethnic, and it is unfair and pretentious to deny two people the right to be happy just because they like a different gender than somebody else. Anyway, just my opinion- I'm straight, I'm going to marry a girl, and really I don't see my world falling apart if someone I know decides to marry a guy. It's totally irrelevant...

[Falagar]

Welcome Aquilonis! This thread needs a sign. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter", or something

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You discern the inherent nature of things through reason. Your logic would necessitate that everything that happens is through nature.

Everything that happens has a cause and effect, which will differ with the nature of the thing and cause. So yes, as I don't believe in any platonic 'true nature'. That doesn't mean everything that happens is 'right', though.

Indeed. But Protestants came from the Catholic Church, and they brought what they liked from it.

No, they brought with them the parts God wanted them to bring. Not very strange, considering how the church had been behaving the last centuries.

That which proceeds from reason can hardly be said to be ipso facto unnatural. Not that it cannot be natural. Reason is a0 part of human nature, so that things which proceed from it cannot be said because of that to be unnatural; however, it does not follow that everything which proceeds from reason is necessarily natural. Some things are, and some are not.

Sorry, missed the 'ipso facto'. Still, how do you decide what things are 'natural' and what things aren't? This seems to lead back to the Bible, and what you personally believe God's intensions are.

Certain philosophers, in their opposition to such ethics, paint a verbal picture of pleasure sitting as a queen over all things, and all of the virtues as lowly slaves doing everything they do for the sake of pleasure. Fortitude endures unpleasantness, by Pleasure's command, that it may pass and she go on to pleasurable things. Wisdom searches for truth, solely that it may be used for Pleasure. Temperance refrains from certain things, solely that the pleasure from others might be all the greater.

Happiness would be a better word. Anyway, replace 'Pleasure' with 'God' (...'queen' with 'king' - according to most people, anyway) and the virtues with 'humans' you have a picture of how some philosophers may concider Christianity.

Though since the ultimate goal of Christianity is being with God and being with God is considered the 'ultimate pleasure', perhaps it isn't really necessary to replace anything. Happiness is still the goal of any ethical system, whether in this life or another.

[Rosie Gamgee]

Originally Posted by Falagar

But the notion of 'God' is founded in a religious system.

No; The religious system was founded on the idea of God. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Originally Posted by Falagar

Happiness would be a better word. Anyway, replace 'Pleasure' with 'God' (...'queen' with 'king' - according to most people, anyway) and the virtues with 'humans' you have a picture of how some philosophers may concider Christianity.

Though since the ultimate goal of Christianity is being with God and being with God is considered the 'ultimate pleasure', perhaps it isn't really necessary to replace anything. Happiness is still the goal of any ethical system, whether in this life or another.

The ulimate goal of Christianity is to reconcile men to God. Not to pursue pleasure. The goal is to be sinless that we may make ourselves right with God and escape judgement and eternal punishment. If it is the pursuit of any pleasure, it is the pursuit of pleasure in the next life, not this one.

[brownjenkins]

The atheist's goal is happiness in this life. And the intelligent one realizes that one's own happiness is effected by the happiness of those around us.

I think that was the gist of much of jesus' teachings as well.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Rosie Gamgee

No; The religious system was founded on the idea of God. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Well, for one that's unverifiable, and for another it doesn't matter whether God exists or not, the people that worship him still do so within the context of a religious system.

The ulimate goal of Christianity is to reconcile men to God. Not to pursue pleasure. The goal is to be sinless that we may make ourselves right with God and escape judgement and eternal punishment. If it is the pursuit of any pleasure, it is the pursuit of pleasure in the next life, not this one.

Exactly. Pursue of pleasure is pursue of pleasure, whether the pleasure occures in this life or the next (which is why I said "whether in this life or another.").