- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,667
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If a person presides over a marriage which is plainly invalid by law, they should be punished. UCC ministers (who aren't priests, BTW) are not above the law.
Contraception is evil, so the analogy does not hold.
Because the harm they are causing to others by creating a married gay couple is?......
And if no harm is caused, they should be punished why?
LOLOLOLOL
Nevamind.
Sacrilege. Encouraging sodomy. Degrading public morality.
Harm is caused.
.
Sacrilege only applies to religious beliefs, so it has ZERO to do with US law. Sodomy is a private act performed by couples....none of anyone's business and again...does ZERO harm to anyone.
And you will have to elaborate on how it degrades public morality. I'm part of the public...I see no degradation. Please give examples of how the public/public morality is harmed.
It implies that sodomy is morally acceptable, thus negatively impacting public morality (since the service is public).
It implies that sodomy is morally acceptable, thus negatively impacting public morality (since the service is public).
Since morals are subjective, individual beliefs of what is right and wrong, it is acceptable. The decision in Lawrence made it "acceptable", at least as far as the law and the majority of the country is concerned.
Plus, as Lawrence rightly pointed out, sodomy laws were only being used to prosecute gays, whereas opposite sex couples practice sodomy as well, in fact, in pure numbers, heterosexuals greatly outdo homosexuals when it comes to acts of sodomy. 40% of heterosexuals have had anal sex, and well over 90% of heterosexuals have engaged in oral sex, both are acts of sodomy. So, apparently the vast majority of heterosexuals do not consider sodomy morally unacceptable to begin with.
How are morals subjective?
Because they are personal beliefs of whether something is right or wrong. That would make them subjective. There is little chance that anyone on Earth shares their exact moral code with anyone else, given the shear number of nearly infinite moral questions that a person could ask. The answers just wouldn't match completely on every question for any two people, let alone multiple people.
No one knows for absolutely certain the exact number of stars in the galaxy, and each person would guess differently. Does that make the number of stars in the galaxy subjective?
No. But we know that we could count the number of galaxies. You can't know what is right or wrong, not for sure. Using scientific principles, you can know the exact number of stars. You cannot know whether something is truly right or truly wrong (morally speaking) using scientific principles.
Then what is the exact number of stars?
Just as I can't tell you the exact distance from here to our sun, I also cannot tell you the exact number of stars. I do not personally have the necessary equipment to make that determination. Other people might. In fact, there have been some estimations made. Another example. I have never actually witnessed a nuclear reaction, but I have witnessed the results of countless numbers while working in Navy nuclear power. I have no idea how many exact reactions I have witnessed the results of but that number could be quantified given enough data. It would be a scientific analysis, not an opinion or belief about nuclear power or even how many reactions I have witnessed the results of.
Morals are equivalent to someone saying "the best color is blue" or "the best kind of music is easy listening". They are based purely on personal opinions.
How are morals nothing more than personal opinions?
How are morals nothing more than personal opinions?
How are morals nothing more than personal opinions?
Because they are. That is in fact part of the definition of morals.
Moral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
mor·al
adjective \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
: based on what you think is right and good
: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
This is really easy. Prove that a moral position holds true using measurements of some kind. Use some scientific principle to prove its absolutely true that something you believe is right or wrong is no matter what.
If someone tells you their morals state the color blue is evil, can you prove their morals to be incorrect? And if so, how would you do it?
The burden of proof is on them to establish a positive claim.
Well then, it is just like the burden of proof is on YOU to prove there is a god which you cannot. The so called "proof" you provide is that of a book which was written by man. You cannot prove divine intervention, you cannot prove God's will, and you cannot prove your morals to be correct.
There is a reason religion is called "faith" and not fact.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/191925-legislating-morality-2.html#post1063190006
The burden of proof is on them to establish a positive claim.
It implies that sodomy is morally acceptable, thus negatively impacting public morality (since the service is public).
Absurd argument. Legal does not equate to morally acceptable. And if you're going off that your argument is really flawed because regardless if SSM is legalized homosexuality is legal.
You lost
I refer you to Aquinas's five ways.
I refer you to Aquinas's five ways.
Are bull. That is not a scientific analysis. It is a personal opinion that arrives at points the person wants to draw. There is no way to prove any of those assertions.
SparkNotes: Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225
"Thus, Arguments 1, 2, 4, and 5 conclude that God exists because the world requires him as an explanation, and Argument 3 concludes that God could not not exist."
Basically his arguments require believing that God exists prior to even drawing the conclusions being drawing. I could easily state that the FSM created the Earth 12 minutes ago and gave us all the necessary memories and personalities and even evidence and proof for everything we think we know and even beliefs as well, just to have a little fun with us. Or we could be an experiment set up for a group of mice to answer "the question of life, the universe, and everything" (which is 42 by the way).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?