Jump to content

Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?


johntm

Recommended Posts

As arguments go, this is getting pretty hilariously tenuous. I don't think the city paying to bring a bit of colour and hope into possibly hundreds of repressed individuals is a waste of money.

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

^^ Well since the city's going bankrupt from shielding illegal immigrant drug dealers from the federal government so that they can murder families I don't think it's smart to waste any money on parades. If we were in a stable financial situation I honestly wouldn't mind a gay pride parade as long as it was not over the top. It's not necessarily pink clothes that bother me as the gross stuff.

 

 

 

Jesus Christ do you stereotype every type of person other than yourself? I bet your one of those people who thinks everyone around you is ignorant and stupid yet you're amazingly intelligent and always in the right. Americas economic problems don't come from illegal immigrants, but instead the spiraling oil prices, pumping billions into Iraq for your overpowered army and stupid lending by banks. Illegal immigrants have very little to do with your economic problems.

 

 

 

 

 

I was talking about the city not the country. Our city spends a lot of money in order to protect illegal immigrant drug dealers from INS. They have been keeping them in some lowly guarded facility where 8 or 9 escaped last month. One of them went on to kill a family.

 

 

 

So because one of them went on to commit a crime the whole group deserves to be stereotyped? That's like my saying all Americans are unstable serial killers because of columbine, it's untrue, unfair on the average American and utter [cabbage]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sly_Wizard, are you going to answer my question?

 

 

 

Sorry. I didn't see your question. It's occurred in ancient Rome, in most/all of the kingdoms of the Middle East before the Ottoman Empire and Eastern Asia and, to a lesser extent, the kingdoms of Africa and tribes of the Americas. The verdict is still out on Europe (Though I'd expect European society to collapse in on itself, so to speak, in the next century. Provided humans last that long).

 

 

 

I see your point Sly, but I still disagree. Let's take a boy without a father as an example. Sometimes the lack of a masculine figure in your family causes you to become feminine and eventually even become homosexual. The boy doesn't make the choice to lose his father - he does not make the choice to be deprived of masculinity.

 

 

 

I'm 99.999% sure that's not true-- At all.

I actually think that Zierro is right. If a kid grows up with two homosexual parents it is a good chance that the kid will become homosexual as well, because they would think that people of the same sex should be together like their parents. Or they would become homosexual because thier parents forced it upon them at an early age. None the less homosexual parents = homosexual kid.

 

 

 

No, that's not correct by any stretch. That's like saying that heterosexual couples breed heterosexual kids. It's absurd and totally not supported by any kind of study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire topic is kinda made useless when you consider that right and wrong don't even exist.

 

 

 

Unless you believe in objective morality, which doesn't make any sense.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire topic is kinda made useless when you consider that right and wrong don't even exist.

 

 

 

Unless you believe in objective morality, which doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

This is a pretty useless post, there's no need for any metaphysical discourse here. You can tell what the title means.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire topic is kinda made useless when you consider that right and wrong don't even exist.

 

 

 

Unless you believe in objective morality, which doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

This is a pretty useless post, there's no need for any metaphysical discourse here. You can tell what the title means.

 

 

 

The title really means "Homosexuality: Socially Acceptable?" - because that's really what morality is.

 

 

 

BUT, Christians do believe in objective morality, which is why they argue that homosexuality is a "sin", because the Bible says that it is a sin. When you consider that Christians and the religious are the main opponents to homosexual freedom, it is necessary to point out the presupposed flaw that absolute morality actually exists, and to tell them that what we consider "right and wrong" has merely been ground into us through the process of life in a society which considers certain things "right or wrong." The absolutes, murder, rape, etc, most people wouldn't argue that they are wrong (you know what I mean), however subjects such as homosexuality are argued over generally between the religious and the atheistic.

 

 

 

I see no reason to believe that homosexuality is not socially acceptable, because it is my opinion that one should be able to do whatever they want to their own body/have relationships with whoever (consensually with adults). The only argument against homosexuality itself[*], is that the Bible considers it wrong. Therefore, the idea of moral relativism is entirely relevant, because to refute the Christian claim, you must refute the very basis of the idea of moral objectivity in the first place.

 

 

 

[*]I'm not talking about homosexual parenting or anything - just homosexuality itself. The act of having a relationship with someone of the same gender.

 

 

 

Your assertion that my post was unnecessary is unfounded in both reason and logic - I doubt you refute the idea that to prove the idea of "sin" wrong, you must first prove the idea of moral relativism right.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, said once again, moral relativism is idiotic.

 

 

 

If moral absolutes don't exist, then someone would be able to do anything and everything according to his or her own moral compass without fear of retribution, as moral relativism makes no value judgements concerning other systems of morality (It can't, otherwise it'd be a form of moral absolutism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, said once again, moral relativism is idiotic.

 

 

 

If moral absolutes don't exist, then someone would be able to do anything and everything according to his or her own moral compass without fear of retribution, as moral relativism makes no value judgements concerning other systems of morality (It can't, otherwise it'd be a form of moral absolutism).

 

 

 

EDIT: I understand what you mean.

 

 

 

See later post.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire topic is kinda made useless when you consider that right and wrong don't even exist.

 

 

 

Unless you believe in objective morality, which doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

This is a pretty useless post, there's no need for any metaphysical discourse here. You can tell what the title means.

 

 

 

The title really means "Homosexuality: Socially Acceptable?" - because that's really what morality is.

 

 

 

BUT, Christians do believe in objective morality, which is why they argue that homosexuality is a "sin", because the Bible says that it is a sin. When you consider that Christians and the religious are the main opponents to homosexual freedom, it is necessary to point out the presupposed flaw that absolute morality actually exists, and to tell them that what we consider "right and wrong" has merely been ground into us through the process of life in a society which considers certain things "right or wrong." The absolutes, murder, rape, etc, most people wouldn't argue that they are wrong (you know what I mean), however subjects such as homosexuality are argued over generally between the religious and the atheistic.

 

 

 

I see no reason to believe that homosexuality is not socially acceptable, because it is my opinion that one should be able to do whatever they want to their own body/have relationships with whoever (consensually with adults). The only argument against homosexuality itself[*], is that the Bible considers it wrong. Therefore, the idea of moral relativism is entirely relevant, because to refute the Christian claim, you must refute the very basis of the idea of moral objectivity in the first place.

 

 

 

[*]I'm not talking about homosexual parenting or anything - just homosexuality itself. The act of having a relationship with someone of the same gender.

 

 

 

Your assertion that my post was unnecessary is unfounded in both reason and logic - I doubt you refute the idea that to prove the idea of "sin" wrong, you must first prove the idea of moral relativism right.

 

 

 

The post was silly, this point of moral relativism does not render the topic useless in the slightest and you offered no explanation for what you said, unlike now.. This latest post is rather good however. I never meant to say that your view was wrong, only that the way you posted it left something to be desired.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, said once again, moral relativism is idiotic.

 

 

 

If moral absolutes don't exist, then someone would be able to do anything and everything according to his or her own moral compass without fear of retribution, as moral relativism makes no value judgements concerning other systems of morality (It can't, otherwise it'd be a form of moral absolutism).

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "moral relativism makes no value judgments concerning other systems of morality."

 

 

 

Please explain.

 

 

 

It's quite simple. If morals are relative rather than absolute, then everyone would contain their own "moral compass", so to speak. Given that everyone would have their own sense of morals, and given that a universal "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist, then there'd be no basis under which to call someone else's morality "right" or "wrong", for the moment one person's morality tries to impose itself upon another person's morality, then it stops being relativist in favor of absolutist in nature. Going back up a couple of posts, you happened to mention things such as murder and rape being deemed as "absolute wrongs". I'm so glad you happened to mention that not everyone considers these two actions to be wrong. Assuming all morality is relative, then neither of these actions would/could be considered "absolute wrongs". How could they since not everyone considers them wrong? They couldn't. Morals aren't relative. When they stop being absolutist in nature, the society they're present in collapses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, said once again, moral relativism is idiotic.

 

 

 

If moral absolutes don't exist, then someone would be able to do anything and everything according to his or her own moral compass without fear of retribution, as moral relativism makes no value judgements concerning other systems of morality (It can't, otherwise it'd be a form of moral absolutism).

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "moral relativism makes no value judgments concerning other systems of morality."

 

 

 

Please explain.

 

 

 

It's quite simple. If morals are relative rather than absolute, then everyone would contain their own "moral compass", so to speak. Given that everyone would have their own sense of morals, and given that a universal "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist, then there'd be no basis under which to call someone else's morality "right" or "wrong", for the moment one person's morality tries to impose itself upon another person's morality, then it stops being relative in favor of absolutist in nature. Going back up a couple of posts, you happened to mention things such as murder and rape being deemed as "absolute wrongs". I'm so glad you happened to mention that not everyone considers these two actions to be wrong. Assuming all morality is relative, then neither of these actions would/could be considered "absolute wrongs". How could they since not everyone considers them wrong? They couldn't. Morals aren't relative. When they stop being absolutist in nature, the society they're present in collapses.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Zeitgeist is a load of horse [cabbage]. What I wrote isn't.

 

 

 

The collective attitudes, literature and mindset of a time creating a moral back drop against which we can measure what is deemed to be okay and what is not is horse [cabbage]?

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, said once again, moral relativism is idiotic.

 

 

 

If moral absolutes don't exist, then someone would be able to do anything and everything according to his or her own moral compass without fear of retribution, as moral relativism makes no value judgements concerning other systems of morality (It can't, otherwise it'd be a form of moral absolutism).

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "moral relativism makes no value judgments concerning other systems of morality."

 

 

 

Please explain.[/quote

 

 

 

It's quite simple. If morals are relative rather than absolute, then everyone would contain their own "moral compass", so to speak. Given that everyone would have their own sense of morals, and given that a universal "right" and "wrong" wouldn't exist, then there'd be no basis under which to call someone else's morality "right" or "wrong", for the moment one person's morality tries to impose itself upon another person's morality, then it stops being relative in favor of absolutist in nature. Going back up a couple of posts, you happened to mention things such as murder and rape being deemed as "absolute wrongs". I'm so glad you happened to mention that not everyone considers these two actions to be wrong. Assuming all morality is relative, then neither of these actions would/could be considered "absolute wrongs". How could they since not everyone considers them wrong? They couldn't. Morals aren't relative. When they stop being absolutist in nature, the society they're present in collapses.

 

 

 

Okay, this may take awhile, but here's why you're wrong.

 

 

 

This argument isn't mine, but whatever. It's a pretty common argument.

 

 

 

Forget morality a second, let me use the idea of motion as an analogy.

 

 

 

"For the purposes of assigning objective truth conditions, a judgment of the form, P is in motion, has to be understood as elliptical for a judgment of the form, in relation to spatio-temporal framework M, P is in motion. Similarly for other judgments of motion."

 

 

 

In order to make a judgment on motion, one must previously assume the "spatio-temporal" framework into the equation. If I said for example "That car is not moving", the non-movement of the car would be relative to the non-movement of the rocks, and trees, houses, etc around it. Reference to said "spatio-temporal" framework is necessary because it is also true that the car IS moving, on the Earth's surface, on a rotating planet, orbiting the sun, ETC. The car is moving, relative to said spatio-temporal frameworks.

 

 

 

"Does the fact that all judgments of motion are relative to spatio-temporal frameworks and that there is no privileged spatio-temporal framework mean that one cannot make a judgment about motion? It seems absurd to suggest that it does given the ubiquity of judgments of motion. It would be odd to deny the ability to make a judgment about motion even though all such judgments are relative to a specific spatio-temporal framework, none of which are privileged."

 

 

 

You might argue then that, if this is the case, a moral relativist must take note of all moral stances. The judgment whether to defer from one's own moral judgment and take note of others, is in itself a moral judgment. If ones' moral development demands that one should not defer from said judgment, then one would of course, not defer.

 

 

 

"For example, imagine that it can be inferred from S's moral framework that it is morally wrong to rape a child. Imagine, conversely, that it can be inferred from Q's moral framework that it is morally right to rape a child. S, a moral relativist, may acknowledge that raping a child is morally right given Q's moral framework, but if S's moral framework does not demand that she defer to all other moral frameworks, she is obligated to adopt that framework.Further, imagine that it can also be inferred from S's moral framework that it is morally right to use force to stop someone from raping a child. If S sees Q attempting to rape a child, it does not matter that S acknowledges that it can be inferred from Q's moral framework that it is morally right to rape a child. S acts on the basis of S's moral framework, not on the basis of Q's. If it cannot be inferred from S's moral framework that S must defer to Q's moral framework, then S will act to stop Q's raping of the child."

 

 

 

Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider "wrong", as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this may take awhile, but here's why you're wrong.

 

 

 

This argument isn't mine, but whatever. It's a pretty common argument.

 

 

 

Forget morality a second, let me use the idea of motion as an analogy.

 

 

 

"For the purposes of assigning objective truth conditions, a judgment of the form, P is in motion, has to be understood as elliptical for a judgment of the form, in relation to spatio-temporal framework M, P is in motion. Similarly for other judgments of motion."

 

 

 

In order to make a judgment on motion, one must previously assume the "spatio-temporal" framework into the equation. If I said for example "That car is not moving", the non-movement of the car would be relative to the non-movement of the rocks, and trees, houses, etc around it. Reference to said "spatio-temporal" framework is necessary because it is also true that the car IS moving, on the Earth's surface, on a rotating planet, orbiting the sun, ETC. The car is moving, relative to said spatio-temporal frameworks.

 

 

 

"Does the fact that all judgments of motion are relative to spatio-temporal frameworks and that there is no privileged spatio-temporal framework mean that one cannot make a judgment about motion? It seems absurd to suggest that it does given the ubiquity of judgments of motion. It would be odd to deny the ability to make a judgment about motion even though all such judgments are relative to a specific spatio-temporal framework, none of which are privileged."

 

 

 

You might argue then that, if this is the case, a moral relativist must take note of all moral stances. The judgment whether to defer from one's own moral judgment and take note of others, is in itself a moral judgment. If ones' moral development demands that one should not defer from said judgment, then one would of course, not defer.

 

 

 

"For example, imagine that it can be inferred from S's moral framework that it is morally wrong to rape a child. Imagine, conversely, that it can be inferred from Q's moral framework that it is morally right to rape a child. S, a moral relativist, may acknowledge that raping a child is morally right given Q's moral framework, but if S's moral framework does not demand that she defer to all other moral frameworks, she is obligated to adopt that framework.Further, imagine that it can also be inferred from S's moral framework that it is morally right to use force to stop someone from raping a child. If S sees Q attempting to rape a child, it does not matter that S acknowledges that it can be inferred from Q's moral framework that it is morally right to rape a child. S acts on the basis of S's moral framework, not on the basis of Q's. If it cannot be inferred from S's moral framework that S must defer to Q's moral framework, then S will act to stop Q's raping of the child."

 

 

 

Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider "wrong", as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.

 

 

 

Oi vey... I've seen this before and it's still wrong. Because I'm lazy and don't feel like going through this piece by piece, I'll just focus on this, the last sentence ---> "Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider 'wrong', as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.".

 

 

 

First of all, it's important to note that relativistic principles exist everywhere in nature. No one has disputed this (Just getting this out there). The problem with comparing moral relativism to other relativist principles is that they lack one very important feature; value judgements (You know... "Right" and "wrong", which I made of point of mentioning the first time). There are no value judgments anywhere when discussing matters of "spatio-temporality" (Or whatever) because we know through physics that motion is relative. In fact, value judgements are confined to-- You guessed it!-- Morality and morality is, more or less, a matter of philosophy moreso than it is natural sciences. To compare the two is to engage in a bit of a non-sequitur. Anyway, to get to the last sentence, it's highlights exactly what I said earlier. A moral system which does not treat all other moral systems as equal isn't relative. If it deems other systems as superior, it will try to adopt them. If it deems other systems as inferior, it will try to suppress them. When one system tries to impose itself on another system (Or, in this case, when one's morals begin to impose on another's morals) then that system ceases to be relative in favor of absolute. No one said the relativist couldn't stop someone from raping another, but that once he does he's exercising his or her morals as "right" and the other person's as "wrong" and, thusly, is adopting an absolutist stance towards morality. Try as you will, but there is no getting around this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oi vey... I've seen this before and it's still wrong. Because I'm lazy and don't feel like going through this piece by piece, I'll just focus on this, the last sentence ---> "Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider 'wrong', as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.".

 

 

 

First of all, it's important to note that relativistic principles exist everywhere in nature. No one has disputed this (Just getting this out there). The problem with comparing moral relativism to other relativist principles is that they lack one very important feature; value judgements (You know... "Right" and "wrong", which I made of point of mentioning the first time). There are no value judgments anywhere when discussing matters of "spatio-temporality" (Or whatever) because we know through physics that motion is relative. In fact, value judgements are confined to-- You guessed it!-- Morality. To compare the two is to engage in a bit of a non-sequitur.

 

 

 

Anyway, to get to the last sentence, it's highlights exactly what I said earlier. A moral system which does not treat all other moral systems as equal isn't relative. If it deems others as inferior, it will try to suppress them. If it deems them superior, it will try to adopt them. When one system tries to impose itself on another system (Or, in this case, when one's morals begin to impose on another's morals) then that system ceases to be relative. No one said the relativist couldn't stop someone from raping another, but that once he does he's exercising his or her morals as "right" and the other person's as "wrong". Try as you will, but there is no getting around this fact.

 

 

 

The act of doing so is a moral judgment in itself. "Right" and "wrong" do not exist - only what we think of them to be. Just because I consider myself correct, does not mean that something it is absolute. Even if I'm a moral relativist. If I consider myself correct according to the time which I live within - to consider someone elses morals as "correct" would require that I make the moral decision to defer from my own morals in the first place, which would be based upon my morality. And as I consider my morals "correct within my time" - I do not consider them absolute.

 

 

 

Arguing your point proves nothing about objective morality. All it proves (if anything), is that a moral relativist has to consider themselves correct within their time in order to not defer from their own morals when making decisions about other peoples' morality.

 

 

 

This does not make their morals "absolute." You're trying to project a strawman of the relativist position in order to easily deflect its valid arguments. There is a difference between "right" and "socially acceptable." I can stop someone from doing something because it is not a socially acceptable thing, without me having to consider that thing absolutely WRONG and sinful in nature.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

 

The collective attitudes, literature and mindset of a time creating a moral back drop against which we can measure what is deemed to be okay and what is not is horse [cabbage]?

 

 

 

I take it you haven't seen the movie? >_<

 

 

 

I just looked it up, and it's exactly the type of thing I would avoid, so no, I haven't seen it! :)

 

 

 

I'll assume you were joking though, you seem like a smart enough fella to know what I was talking about.

La lune ne garde aucune rancune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oi vey... I've seen this before and it's still wrong. Because I'm lazy and don't feel like going through this piece by piece, I'll just focus on this, the last sentence ---> "Your reasoning is flawed, because a moral relativist CAN act to stop an act they consider 'wrong', as long as their own moral framework does not infer that one should defer from one's own moral framework.".

 

 

 

First of all, it's important to note that relativistic principles exist everywhere in nature. No one has disputed this (Just getting this out there). The problem with comparing moral relativism to other relativist principles is that they lack one very important feature; value judgements (You know... "Right" and "wrong", which I made of point of mentioning the first time). There are no value judgments anywhere when discussing matters of "spatio-temporality" (Or whatever) because we know through physics that motion is relative. In fact, value judgements are confined to-- You guessed it!-- Morality. To compare the two is to engage in a bit of a non-sequitur.

 

 

 

Anyway, to get to the last sentence, it's highlights exactly what I said earlier. A moral system which does not treat all other moral systems as equal isn't relative. If it deems others as inferior, it will try to suppress them. If it deems them superior, it will try to adopt them. When one system tries to impose itself on another system (Or, in this case, when one's morals begin to impose on another's morals) then that system ceases to be relative. No one said the relativist couldn't stop someone from raping another, but that once he does he's exercising his or her morals as "right" and the other person's as "wrong". Try as you will, but there is no getting around this fact.

 

 

 

The act of doing so is a moral judgment in itself. "Right" and "wrong" do not exist - only what we think of them to be. Just because I consider myself correct, does not mean that something it is absolute. Even if I'm a moral relativist. If I consider myself correct according to the time which I live within - to consider someone elses morals as "correct" would require that I make the moral decision to defer from my own morals in the first place, which would be based upon my morality. And as I consider my morals "correct within my time" - I do not consider them absolute.

 

 

 

Okay. I'm not so sure you understood what I wrote out, so lemme' try this again. No one is a moral relativist, as to be one would be to give credence to every value system as valid (Validity has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong"). To consider someone else's values as "right" or "wrong" would make you a moral absolutist, as you're making a value judgement concerning someone else's morality (Not to mention that you would try to suppress or even get rid of actions you deem as "wrong"). Pretty simple, really.

 

 

 

Arguing your point proves nothing about objective morality. All it proves (if anything), is that a moral relativist has to consider themselves correct within their time in order to not defer from their own morals when making decisions about other peoples' morality.

 

 

 

Whoa whoa whoa... Where on Earth did I say anything about objective morality? I didn't (And am 99.9999% sure I've never said anything about objective morality anywhere). I said moral absolutism. Two different things.

 

 

 

This does not make their morals "absolute." You're trying to project a strawman of the relativist position in order to easily deflect its valid arguments. There is a difference between "right" and "socially acceptable." I can stop someone from doing something because it is not a socially acceptable thing, without me having to consider that thing absolutely WRONG and sinful in nature.

 

 

 

First of all, there's nothing "valid" about moral relativism. Second of all, I'd just like to ask who's the one projecting the strawman now? Once again, no one is concerned with what's "socially acceptable" and "socially unacceptable". We're arguing "right" and "wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I'm not so sure you understood what I wrote out, so lemme' try this again. No one is a moral relativist, as to be one would be to give credence to every value system as valid (Validity has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong"). To consider someone else's values as "right" or "wrong" would make you a moral absolutist, as you're making a value judgement concerning someone else's morality (Not to mention that you would try to suppress or even get rid of actions you deem as "wrong"). Pretty simple, really.

 

 

 

No. My judgment about someone else's morality is because my morality tells me that I should not defer from my morality. Of course that means that I consider their morality incorrect for our time, but I do not consider my morality "absolute".

 

 

 

That does not make it absolute. The idea is that morality is cause by social/political/economic influences. I consider my morality "correct within my time". Not absolute. There is a difference.

 

 

 

No, whether something is socially acceptable is important. For your argument to be correct, you must first state that moral relativists believe in the idea of "right" and "wrong". I don't. If I stop someone from doing something it is because it is NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. It does not mean that in a few hundred years it will still be not socially acceptable. Who knows, it could. My argument is that social acceptance is in essence, what "wrong" is - whereas you would say that the Bible tells us what is right and what is wrong. I argue that the Bible tells us what was socially acceptable in Biblical times.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My judgment about someone else's morality is because my morality tells me that I should not defer from my morality. Of course that means that I consider their morality incorrect for our time, but I do not consider my morality "absolute".

 

 

 

That does not make it absolute. The idea is that morality is cause by social/political/economic influences. I consider my morality "correct within my time". Not absolute. There is a difference.

 

 

 

...Okay. You're just playing with me, aren't you? First of all, find me where I said you considered your morality to be "absolute". You can't because I didn't say it. I said that when relativistic set of morals tries to impose on another set of morals it ceases to be relativistic in favor of absolutist. I'm not sure where you got the whole "You said this" thing from. Second of all, I've yet to hear anyone say "This is wrong today. But tomorrow it'll be right." Why not? Because everyone has an ingrained set of morals-- NO ONE gives credence to all moral systems (I don't care who you are). Without giving credence to all moral systems as valid, you simply cannot be a moral relativist. Everyone, at some point in time, tries to impose their morality upon someone else because you deem sense of morality to be inferior. The absolute closest you can get to moral relativism is this statement: "Morality is relative to everyone, but the common morality of the majoriy imposes it's will on the uncommon morality of the minority." Henceforth why morals have changed relatively little over the history of mankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absolute closest you can get to moral relativism is this statement: "Morality is relative to everyone, but the common morality of the majoriy imposes it's will on the uncommon morality of the minority." Henceforth why morals have changed relatively little over the history of mankind.

 

 

 

Thats pretty much what I'm saying. Kinda

 

 

 

I wouldn't say they have changed relatively little - I mean, people used to eat eachother, incest - rape -murder. It is not that long ago that you could simply challenge someone to a duel and then proceed to kill them without punishment..

 

 

 

(Moral objectivity = sin = sinful nature of homosexuality according to the Bible)

 

 

 

For you to consider homosexuality to be sinful you have to presuppose that:

 

 

 

1) morals exist regardless of humanity

 

2) Every single word in the Bible is the Word of God

 

3) God is perfect.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless homosexuals start reproducing with each other it is wrong.

 

Well I guess that about clears all the arguing up, guys. Time to head home.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.