Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

I liked these comments over at C&L:

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.

Of course now is the time for President Bush to back the ban on gay marriages. Iraq is secure, so are our borders, the government is prepared for hurricane season, no rogue nations are trying to develop nuclear weapons, gas prices are stable, personal income far outpaces inflation, and we're enjoying a time of peace and prosperity. Obviously, there's nothing else he needs to concentrate on right now.

 

[Learn2read]

If Bush was smart

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Xdrive05]

I think you misunderstand. Marriage is a legal institution. It means something IN LAW (two married people can file taxes together, spouses have certain medical rights, etc.), therefore it is very closely tied into the government.

Nah, you misunderstood (and I probably typed my point very poorly, so no bads toward you). My point it that... drumroll... it *shouldn't* be tied closely into the government. Abolish state marriage and allow marriage to be solely a religious institution, which is its place. Allow gays and all consenting adults to form legal ties to each other as they see fit, say, with civil unions and other contractual agreements. That solves everyone's problems. Religious people can get married if they want to.

 

[Link648099]

It doesn't.

Morality at large is defined by what the majority of the people in any given society will approve of. The average American won't apply bribes to get out of compulsory government service, and would be appalled by others who do. But in many other countries that's the way it is and the citizenry accepts it as being common as the sun rising everyday.

Last time I checked though, there were a heck of a lot more people dissapproving of incest then there are go homosexuality. Until the day that individual freedoms are so paramount as to make that notion quaint, it will continue to be disallowed socialy and legally.

So while one CAN argue that incectious, non-procreational couplings do nothing to harm society, and should be given the same respect as any normal gay couple that wants to get together, you're not going to find much in the way of support.

And that is the true judge. People who have any sort of interest that caters only to the few can and do use that argument. Doesn't NAMBLA use that same line of reasoning? There could be a day where your supposition could indeed come true, and morality at large would be flexible to accomidate that. But so far, that's still a pretty big chasm to cross.

So essentially, morality is nothing more then a social contruct?

So if a society bands up against another group of people, gathers them all up into a single place and burns them all with the hope of exterminating them, its A-OK as long as that society accepts it as such?

So if a woman is burned alive next to her dead husband, and society accepts this, thats just fine?

So if little girl's vaginas are sewn shut to prevent infidelity, and the society as a whole approves this, thats just fine, right?

So if infants and the elderly are left out in the open to die, and the whole society accepts this, thats fine and dandy by you?

So if a homosexual (or a convert out of Islam, or a rape victim) is dicovered in Saudi Arabia, s/he should be taken outside and stoned to death, right?

So if someone really liked living, but the Sun God demanded their death, then it's perfectly alright to sacrifice that person on an alter, so long as the majority of society agreed with that action?

Don't you just love living in America, where everything seems just so sane and acceptable to you, and you are never in a position to have to deal with any of the above scenarios, like the Jews, Indians, Africans, Eskimo, Arabians and ancient Latin Americans had to?

So enough lollygagging on my part. I'd like to point out that you contradicted yourself as well. You said

Morality at large is defined by what the majority of the people in any given society will approve of.

and you say that "that is the true judge." So your contradiction lies in assumming that the majority is better then the minority.

Essentially you are saying that it is morally good (better) to go with the majority, and not morally good to go with the minority in all occasions.

Why should the majority decide what is right, and not the minority?

Might makes right, then?

I will go out on a limb here to suggest this, but I would imagine if you were about to be gassed, burnt to a crisp, mutilated, stoned, or sacrificed, you (who would currently be holding the minority viewpoint) would not be too thrilled at any of those things happening to you, and would probably view them as "wrong."

 

[Mercury Fred]

Strawman strike three.

Sorry, you struck out. Please reread my arguments.

Your condescending use of sports analogies to control the "rules" of this argument is impressively Limbaughian.

 

[Matt]

Nah, you misunderstood (and I probably typed my point very poorly, so no bads toward you). My point it that... drumroll... it *shouldn't* be tied closely into the government. Abolish state marriage and allow marriage to be solely a religious institution, which is its place. Allow gays and all consenting adults to form legal ties to each other as they see fit, say, with civil unions and other contractual agreements. That solves everyone's problems. Religious people can get married if they want to.

Ah, ok. Well, then we agree on that point.

 

[Xdrive05]

Your condescending use of sports analogies to control the "rules" of this argument is impressively Limbaughian.

Please don't give Limbaugh the distinction of having a term named after him.

Thanks.

 

[Link648099]

Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what link is arguing for? Is this tangent into incest a supporting argument or a opposing argument to gay marriage? Incest (and when I use the word I am referring to sex between a man and a woman) is dangerous because of the potential for birth defects. With homosexuality, there is no such danger. In that way there is a clear distinction between homosexuality and incest and are very seperate topics.

The conclusion of my argument is that GAF holds a double standard concerning the morality of various possible marriage arrangments. It will deny the right to marry to two homosexual brothers, but will allow two unrelated men to get married. The only way the incestual relationship can be denied the same right as the non-incestual relationship is making an appeal to morality.

So here I find GAF foaming at the mouth when people make a moral argument against homosexual marriage, yet here is GAF relying on a moral argument to keep an incestual couple from marriage.

My whole conclusion is that GAF has a double standard, or to put it bluntly, full of hypocrisy. Take my argument for what you will. At it's core it is making known a slippery slope in the pro-homosexual marriage argument, and that is all.

In other words, I'm showing you all a freaking weakness in your own logic!

The thing most smart people would then do would be to address that weakness and make it stronger!

:lol Theres a whole in the bottom of your boat, and all you people are doing is denying it, while the water keeps rising!

 

[Compton's Most Wanted]

A debate like this is pointless considering the fact that there is no "middle ground" or nuance involved in this issue.

 

[HyperZone<3]

So essentially, morality is nothing more then a social contruct?

So if a society bands up against another group of people, gathers them all up into a single place and burns them all with the hope of exterminating them, its A-OK as long as that society accepts it as such?

So if a woman is burned alive next to her dead husband, and society accepts this, thats just fine?

So if little girl's vaginas are sewn shut to prevent infidelity, and the society as a whole approves this, thats just fine, right?

So if infants and the elderly are left out in the open to die, and the whole society accepts this, thats fine and dandy by you?

So if a homosexual (or a convert out of Islam, or a rape victim) is dicovered in Saudi Arabia, s/he should be taken outside and stoned to death, right?

So if someone really liked living, but the Sun God demanded their death, then it's perfectly alright to sacrifice that person on an alter, so long as the majority of society agreed with that action?

Don't you just love living in America, where everything seems just so sane and acceptable to you, and you are never in a position to have to deal with any of the above scenarios, like the Jews, Indians, Africans, Eskimo, Arabians and ancient Latin Americans had to?

So enough lollygagging on my part. I'd like to point out that you contradicted yourself as well. You said
and you say that "that is the true judge." So your contradiction lies in assumming that the majority is better then the minority.

Essentially you are saying that it is morally good (better) to go with the majority, and not morally good to go with the minority in all occasions.

Why should the majority decide what is right, and not the minority?

Might makes right, then?

I will go out on a limb here to suggest this, but I would imagine if you were about to be gassed, burnt to a crisp, mutilated, stoned, or sacrificed, you (who would currently be holding the minority viewpoint) would not be too thrilled at any of those things happening to you, and would probably view them as "wrong."

I would be holding that viewpoint, but as stated, I'd be in the minority. Morality is relative. Everybody has their own view of what is right and what ain't. People who have committed thw worst atrocities in history were acting upon what they thought was good for the populace at large.

My argument has nothing to do with the morality of gay people marrying, its with the PERCIEVED morality of gay people marrying. Either people will accept it or not. My own opinion leans to a certain direction, but on many issues my opinion differs greatly from the mass opinion. Am I wrong? Does that make my opinion irrelevent because I don't agree with others? Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm my own person, but I'm not my own country.

Action that is taken is taken because it has the tacit approval of most people in the society. That's why honor-killings, genital mutilation, and all other sorts of nifty things still happen today. If there is an influence on society that changes people's opinions (civil rights movement, lets say), then the rules will change accordingly.

I don't think its right to kill somebody because of suspected adultery, but where it happens, its a fact of life because enough people still approve of it so that it continues to happen.

 

[psyadam]

The conclusion of my argument is that GAF holds a double standard concerning the morality of various possible marriage arrangments. It will deny the right to marry to two homosexual brothers, but will allow two unrelated men to get married. The only way the incestual relationship can be denied the same right as the non-incestual relationship is making an appeal to morality. ...

In short, what I'm saying is if you're trying to further the gay cause (like I am), you're doing a shitty job.

 

[Wafflecopter]

I rather marriage be legal than religious. Then even LESS people would be able to marry.:lol

 

[maharg]

Whether or not marriage is a right is not necessarily relevant. The real question (from an american perspective) is whether it falls under the concept of equal protection under the law in the 14th amendment.

The main problem with this issue is that it keeps getting snagged on red herrings. Whether marriage is a right, whether gays are really born that way, etc. These things have nothing at all to do with whether or not it's fair for gay people to be able to get a piece of paper that says they're committed to a long term relationship.

 

[Xdrive05]

I rather marriage be legal than religious. Then even LESS people would be able to marry.:lol

Marriage is a religious thing. Do you think it's right for the government to force churches to marry certain couples? If we're going to do that we might as well go ahead and wad up the constitution and toss it in the can.

Untethering the government from marriage means that those benefits normally awarded to married couples can be awarded to ALL consenting adults in other forms, and that religious people who strongly value marriage (or calling it marriage) can still get married if they so choose.

Think about it. It's the only best answer for this issue.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

In what way do you consider yourself conservative?

Only conservative when compared to several on this board, who are somewhere to the left of Chairman Mao.

 

[Wafflecopter]

Marriage is a religious thing. Do you think it's right for the government to force churches to marry certain couples? If we're going to do that we might as well go ahead and wad up the constitution and toss it in the can.

Untethering the government from marriage means that those benefits normally awarded to married couples can be awarded to ALL consenting adults in other forms, and that religious people who strongly value marriage (or calling it marriage) can still get married if they so choose.

Think about it. It's the only best answer for this issue.

You think hardcore Christians want gays to marry? How about Catholics? Exactly.

 

[Xdrive05]

You think hardcore Christians want gays to marry? How about Catholics? Exactly.

Que?

I'm not sure where you were going with that.

 

[Compton's Most Wanted]

Whether or not marriage is a right is not necessarily relevant. The real question (from an american perspective) is whether it falls under the concept of equal protection under the law in the 14th amendment.

The main problem with this issue is that it keeps getting snagged on red herrings. Whether marriage is a right, whether gays are really born that way, etc. These things have nothing at all to do with whether or not it's fair for gay people to be able to get a piece of paper that says they're committed to a long term relationship.

The problem is those against gay marriage view the act of marriage as more than just "a piece of paper that says you're committed to a long term relationship". Regardless of the fact that marriage has seemingly become more trivial over the years, there is still the issue of the sanctity of marriage that many consider it's essence.

 

[Wafflecopter]

Que?

I'm not sure where you were going with that.

Huh? I meant leaving marriage in the hands of the churches.

 

[Xdrive05]

Huh? I meant leaving marriage in the hands of the churches.

Yup, sounds good to me.


But why is Bush being such a douchebag still? Nigga keeps effing up.

 

[Wafflecopter]

Yup, sounds good to me.


But why is Bush being such a douchebag still? Nigga keeps effing up.

wait what? I am saying marriage SHOULDN'T be in the hands of the church.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Not to go against the grain here or anything, but this is actually the only thing I agree with Bush on.

 

[Matt]

Not to go against the grain here or anything, but this is actually the only thing I agree with Bush on.

Well, that's OK. But, mind saying why?

 

[Xdrive05]

wait what? I am saying marriage SHOULDN'T be in the hands of the church.

Why shouldn't it be? It's their puppy. Do you want to take mass away from the Catholics? Do you want to take nutty snake-handling away from the fringe Pentecostals?

Who do you think should run Marriage and why do you have a problem with churches being in charge of their own institution? It's not the government's place to dictate who can and cannot marry. That belongs to the church alone.

But having overtaken marriage like it has, the government pushed a monopoly of marriage related benefits and rights to the point of creating this "it's our right to get married because being married is significant in today's society" stuff. It's only significant because it has been wrongfully tied to benefits and legal issues, and we can circumvent that monopoly by tearing it down and establishing REAL alternatives that let the gays have those "rights" and also lets the religious people keep their much loved traditions.

And if a church wants to let gays get married, that's great. And if they don't, then fine. In the meantime, gay couples will be allowed to have legal status, shared property, etc. So everyone wins.

But no, everyone is caught up in this red herring bullshit argument between rights and traditions and they can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[civilstrife]

This thread makes me wish I paid more attention in that moral reasoning class I just finished.
To those that clearly know what you're doing on both sides of the argument, good show.
The power of reason is truly a sight to behold.

 

[BobJustBob]

Bush wants to make bigotry not only acceptable but mandatory; NeoGAF bans anything that threatens a corporate-friendly image. Both symptoms of the same ****ing problem.

 

[Wafflecopter]

Why shouldn't it be? It's their puppy. Do you want to take mass away from the Catholics? Do you want to take nutty snake-handling away from the fringe Pentecostals?

Who do you think should run Marriage and why do you have a problem with churches being in charge of their own institution? It's not the government's place to dictate who can and cannot marry. That belongs to the church alone.

But having overtaken marriage like it has, the government pushed a monopoly of marriage related benefits and rights to the point of creating this "it's our right to get married because being married is significant in today's society" stuff. It's only significant because it has been wrongfully tied to benefits and legal issues, and we can circumvent that monopoly by tearing it down and establishing REAL alternatives that let the gays have those "rights" and also lets the religious people keep their much loved traditions.

And if a church wants to let gays get married, that's great. And if they don't, then fine. In the meantime, gay couples will be allowed to have legal status, shared property, etc. So everyone wins.

But no, everyone is caught up in this red herring bullshit argument between rights and traditions and they can't see the forest for the trees.

IMO the church doesn't run on logic, but marriage isn't very logical either, so whatever.

 

[Compton's Most Wanted]

IMO the church doesn't run on logic, but marriage isn't very logical either, so whatever.

That's an entirely different debate all together.

 

[Mercury Fred]

There are the recent examples of judicial activism that concerned many oppossed to gay marriage.

Is the term "judicial activism" the same one you'd use to describe judges' past rulings to desegregate public schools or legalize interracial marriage?

 

[Wafflecopter]

That's an entirely different debate all together.

Is it though? If the question is who should choose these things, the last person I'd pick is the church.

 

[Xdrive05]

IMO the church doesn't run on logic, but marriage isn't very logical either, so whatever.

Logic doesn't have anything to do with rights, or separation of church and state. That is to say that logic isn't a precondition for the above.

The news trades logic for sensationalism. Many religions trade logic for emotionalism. Really illogical people run companies much of the time. Pick your poison.

All of these things are allowed to exist and do their thing. Logic isn't a precondition for freedom, liberty, rights; any of that stuff.

 

[Incognito]

You really have to roll your eyes or bang your head against a wall when you hear a republican or conservative decry the supposed judicial activism taking place across the country that is tearing the moral fiber of America apart. But infact, if you look at SC decisions dating back 30 years or so, as recently done by the NyTimes, those jurists most inclined to roll back precedents and in some cases, just invent the law on the fly, are republican and conservative jurists on the SC. The study was quite remarkable and put a big, fat bullet through that whole "liberal judicial activism" nonsense that all the talking heads love to spit out.

 

[Compton's Most Wanted]

Is the term "judicial activism" the same one you'd use to describe judges' past rulings to desegregate public schools or legalize interracial marriage?

By using those two examples you are trying to imply some sort of moral equivilancy which IMO is wrong.

 

[Matt]

That there are messed-up polygamist sects in this country doesn't make all polygamy bad. Nor has its illegality prevented the existence of these communities, or people living in de facto polygamist marriages minus the legal marriage.

No, but the vast, vast, VAST majority of them are. And besides, there are other legal reasons why polygamy would not work well.

 

[Mercury Fred]

By using those two examples you are trying to imply some sort of moral equivilancy which IMO is wrong.

I'm asking for you to explain what "judicial activism" is. This term gets thrown around, but no one seems to be able to defend why one ruling is judicial activism and another isn't.

So, the question is not one of equivilance. The question is, is the term "judicial activism" the same one you'd use to describe judges' past rulings to desegregate public schools or legalize interracial marriage?

 

[GaimeGuy]

The biggest argument against incest is the fact that it really brings out the worst in genetics. All of the recessive genetic traits and diseases that are carried in an individual get unleashed because that individual has mated with an individual of a similar genetic makeup.

Look at amish communities; there's all sorts of horrible, rare diseases that pop up extremely frequently due to all the inbreeding.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Compton's Most Wanted, fresh bold voice of the conservatives, I'm still wating for an answer.

 

[byproduct]

For the record, I live in Australia where they have already legislated that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. I am a second class citizen in this country. I am gay and have a partner. To people wanting to prevent gay marriage, please understand that this is what not being able to get married means to us, and try to put yourself in our position:

If I become a vegetable and am in hospital on life support, I want my partner, not my parents, who have a different set of beliefs and values to my partner and myself, to determine whether I would rather stay a vegetable and live, or be unplugged and die.

If I die, I want my house and possessions to automatically go to my partner, and not be subject to protests and legal challenges from family. I want to know that he will keep our house, and that my superannuation benefit will go to him so that he can afford to pay the mortgage.

If I am in a car accident I want my partner to be able to visit me in hospital, and not be stopped at the front desk because he "isn't family". He is family to me even if the law says otherwise.

Most of all I don't want people to question what we are to each other or refuse to deal with either of us on the other's behalf because the law does not recognise us as a couple. This comes down to something as basic as being able to tell someone that you're married if they show interest in you, without them asking follow up questions trying to determine how serious the relationship is.

My brother who has been married to a woman for 4 years does not have to think about these situations. I have been with my partner for 8 years and my love for him is just as deep as my brother's love for his wife, yet I will never have the comfort of knowing that we will be alright in the above situations while the government does not allow us to be "married".

 

[Macam]

Not sure how this topic hit 5 pages and I'm not going to flip through it mostly for my sanity, but byproduct's statements highlight one facet that I think a lot of pro-amendment people overlook in favor of one of absolute morality: the government acknowledgement of marriage is a purely legal one. The benefits given to married couples from a government, as outlined by byproduct (as well as by other openly gay celebrities in public) should be granted to all married couples, period.

 

[Link648099]

In short, what I'm saying is if you're trying to further the gay cause (like I am), you're doing a shitty job.

Though I have tried to remain out of the actual debate concerning the amendment, I do not support marriage rights for homosexuals (or for incest or polygamy, etc.)

I do not think a consistent stance can be made on the issue without advocating marriage rights to all repressed classes within society.

But I do think a consistent stance can be made by limiting marriage between a single consenting man and a single consenting woman.

That is the stance I hold, thus all the issues I have brought up are problems for those with a pro-homosexual marriage mindset to answer, not me.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

But in saying morality is relative, you must have an absolute to stand upon, to support that statement. But you do not. The only absolute you state is "morality is relative," but does that not cause you to contradict yourself? If your statement is true, then does that not imply an absolute exists? And if an absolute certainly exists, cannot an absolute also exist for morality?

That's totally goofy and deserving of the following parody paragraph:

You say morality is absolute. If your statement is true, why do I not feel the same way? Doesn't that imply that some things are relative? And if something relative exists, cannot morality be relative?

Tought Experiment 1: Now I say that morality is absolute. But if you say that morality is relative, you are saying that I am wrong, and you right, contradicting your relativity. But if you agree that I am right, you are also contradicting yourself. You violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. Thus the conclusion that morality is relative defeats itself. Then by default an absolute standard of morality must exist, and as I stated above, this absolute standard is found in God.

No no no no. If I say "You are standing 10 feet away." and you say "No, I'm standing right here." that's not a contradiction. It's a different point of view.

The whole point of saying something is relative is to show how two seemingly contradictory things are not necessarily so.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Tought Experiment 1: Now I say that morality is absolute. But if you say that morality is relative, you are saying that I am wrong, and you right, contradicting your relativity. But if you agree that I am right, you are also contradicting yourself. You violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. Thus the conclusion that morality is relative defeats itself. Then by default an absolute standard of morality must exist, and as I stated above, this absolute standard is found in God.

Wow, where to begin? No. Here's why. You claiming that morality is absolute means nothing. Me claiming it's relative means nothing. They are all words, it's actual events and history and opening your eyes that matters. You claim the standard is in God, OK which God? Should I list every God in the history of mankind? Should I list several different Moral systems? Look at Christianity. Have you read the Bible?

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Morality has changed over the past 2000 years. Why? Cause a culture defines morality. That is all there is to it. Need proof of this? Look around the world? Look at all the different cultures and see the differences. You can claim left and right that you are right and your morality is the only correct one and is absolute. But you know what? I'm sure many people think the same thing about thier concept of morality. And I'm sure many think it comes from their god too. So you get a bunch of "my god can beat up your god" and "my morality is better than your morality." That is what makes it relative.

Thought Experiment 2: If you say morality is relative, but the majority of people in the majority of societies throughout the majority of time say that morality is absolute, you are once again contradicting yourself by saying they are wrong (even though they are the majority) and you are right. But then you are not playing by your own rules.

Uh, throughout history people believed all kinds of insane things. That's like saying that because for thousands of years, people believed the sun went around the earth, that it must have been true and you can't say otherwise cause all those people believed it. And look at what you said. You know those majority of societies throughout the majority of time had very different concepts of morality right? If all these people believe that morality is absolute, but all of them have different beliefs of what that absolute is... Then you know what? That's vere relative.

 

[Link648099]

Perhaps maharg and I are on his ignore list. (Not necessarily a bad thing.)

Perhaps I got caught up in the frenzy of posting replies. I acknowledge your consistency though!

 

[Link648099]

That's totally goofy and deserving of the following parody paragraph:

You say morality is absolute. If your statement is true, why do I not feel the same way? Doesn't that imply that some things are relative? And if something relative exists, cannot morality be relative?

No, of course not. All it implies is that you are wrong. The coin does not work both ways. My stance is not self-defeating, while a relativisitc stance is. Something can be objectivly true whether you feel it or not. The lamp on my desk exists despite your lack of feelings for it. Either morality is relative, or it is absolute. If you wanted to be a consistent relativist, you would have to say that my statement, that morality is absolute, is correct. But if you say it is correct, then you contradict your own stance, that morality is relative. But if you say I am wrong, then that means you are right. If that is the case, then your statement is absolute, and self-defeating.

You lose, and I win, by default.

No no no no. If I say "You are standing 10 feet away." and you say "No, I'm standing right here." that's not a contradiction. It's a different point of view.

The whole point of saying something is relative is to show how two seemingly contradictory things are not necessarily so.

Actually, the way you worded it, it would be a contradiction. If you say "you are standing 10 feet away" then obviously I am standing 10 feet away from you (or whatever). But, since you had me say "no, I'm standing right here." you had me disagreeing with your statement. So either I am standing ten feet away, or I am not. Since I disagreed with you, either I am right, or you are right. The way you worded it, we both cannot be right because we both disagree with each other. This is an either/or, not a both/and conversation.

Here is the proper way for the conversation to take place:

Joshua: "Link, you are standing ten feet away from me."
Link: "I'm standing right here."

There is no contradiction for this one. The "here", though unspecified, refers to a specific place, although there isn't enough data in the exchange to determine if either of our statements are true, only that they do not contradict each other.

The statment "I am sitting down" may or may not be true depending on who is saying it. If someone says it and they really are sitting down, then it's true. But if the person next to them says it, and they are standing, then it's not true. Truth corresponds to reality.

We live in an either/or world, and thats the way reality works. (Be careful if you disagree with that statement, i.e. don't use an either/or argument to try and prove it wrong, because you'll just affirm it for me.)

 

[maharg]

That there may in fact be an absolute moral truth does not imply that you know it.

 

[iapetus]

Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what link is arguing for?

I think it's because he likes making himself feel superior to others by ignoring their arguments and being condescending. Certainly looks like the only explanation for it here.

 

[Grimmy]

NOTHING in this world is absolute.

Including the statement above.

Therein lies the beauty of our world and its complexity - there is fundamentally no answer. You choose to believe what you believe. What you believe is no more right or wrong than what I believe. Unless you impose your belief onto mine.

 

[Link648099]

Wow, where to begin? No. Here's why. You claiming that morality is absolute means nothing. Me claiming it's relative means nothing. They are all words, it's actual events and history and opening your eyes that matters.

Actual events and history is the very basis for my stance on all of this. To start off simply and as I stated to Joshua, we live in an either/or world, and thats the way reality works. Relativism has a very poor track record, when it comes to corresponding to reality.

You claim the standard is in God, OK which God?

The Judeo-Christian God as revealed within the Bible.

Should I list every God in the history of mankind?

No, you only need to list one. See above.

Should I list several different Moral systems? Look at Christianity. Have you read the Bible?

::Glances at the 20 feet worth of books on Biblical studies, theology, morality, ethics, apologetics, Biblical history, and philosophy::

Yeah, you could say I'm a tad familiar with the Bible, why do you ask?

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Morality has changed over the past 2000 years.

Hmm...really? By the example you gave me, it seems pretty consistent to me. From the above quoted verse from Deuteronomy 22:29, the idea that rape is wrong is made quite evident, if you ask me. The only thing that seems to differ from today is the method of punishment, but I suppose you are not too familiar with the social customs and expectations of the ancient middle east, are you? Either way, you quoting from a 3,000 year old book from a completly different culture on the wrongness of rape does not help your case here so far...

Why? Cause a culture defines morality. That is all there is to it. Need proof of this? Look around the world? Look at all the different cultures and see the differences. You can claim left and right that you are right and your morality is the only correct one and is absolute. But you know what? I'm sure many people think the same thing about thier concept of morality. And I'm sure many think it comes from their god too. So you get a bunch of "my god can beat up your god" and "my morality is better than your morality." That is what makes it relative.

It does nothing of the sort. One simply has to look to reality, the real world, to find that things are either this, or that. The mere existence of different opinions has never equated to a thing's relative existence. Things do not pop into and out of reality based on opinions, even if they happen to be the majority's. The moon is not made of cheese no matter how many people may believe it to be. The earth is not flat no matter how many people believed it to be in the past.

When I look around the world, I (not surprisingly) see a great deal of consistency when it comes to morality. Who would like to be murdered? Who would like to be raped? Who would like to be stolen from? Who would like to be hated?

I can easily imagine that the majority of people on the earth would not want to be any of those things. Thus if everyone believes it is wrong when any of the above happen to them, we have absolute moral standards.

Also, you seem to have glossed over my whole argument that the statement "morality is relative" is a self-defeating statement all by itself using simple, old, reliable logic. I have appealed to reality to prove my claims. You have done nothing of the sort.

But, I like how your relativism seems to have ceased now that you have encounted an absolutist! In all my years, I have yet to encounter a consistent relativist! The very fact that you argue with me, proves my point!

Uh, throughout history people believed all kinds of insane things. That's like saying that because for thousands of years, people believed the sun went around the earth, that it must have been true and you can't say otherwise cause all those people believed it. And look at what you said. You know those majority of societies throughout the majority of time had very different concepts of morality right? If all these people believe that morality is absolute, but all of them have different beliefs of what that absolute is... Then you know what? That's vere relative.

The only thing you have done in your entire post is prove to me that people have different opinions.

::Crickets chirping::

Yeah...I sort of knew that fact to begin with. You need to show me how all those different opinions, though contradictory, are all true, as opposed to being false.

You also need to show me how, in this relativistic world you claim we live in, I am wrong about all this and you are right and how you know that. <---the $65,000 question

ad nauseum...

 

[Link648099]

NOTHING in this world is absolute.

Including the statement above.

Therein lies the beauty of our world and its complexity - there is fundamentally no answer. You choose to believe what you believe. What you believe is no more right or wrong than what I believe. Unless you impose your belief onto mine.

This is what happens when you rape logic.

 

[Link648099]

That there may in fact be an absolute moral truth does not imply that you know it.

We havn't even gotten to that question yet! I'm just having fun with all these relativists at the moment...

ad nauseum...