Same-sex marriage and religion
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Polka Dot
So rape, murder genocide are all perfectly acceptable?
In my opinion or objectively?
They have attempted to come up with ways to have objective morality without God but none of the stand up logically.
I agree, but they're a hell of a lot more convincing than the theist arguments,
In order to have objective morality you require an authority above humanity and the only thing that could be is a deity.
Authority only exists if people believe it exists. If people rejected a deity's claimed authority over them then it would have no authority over them, only sheer might, which is not the same thing.
Similarly, people can acknowledge the authority of something abstract, such as an ethical theory.
Original post by shadowdweller
I would expect most people would class love as a part of sexuality. It's easier than bringing romantic attraction into the conversation as well. (Although, on the subject, is that also condemned by religions? 
)
The bolded is basically what I said?
)The bolded is basically what I said?
Then 'most people' would be incorrect. Not considering romantic attraction as separate from sexual attraction out of sheer laziness isn't a good excuse.
Original post by Manifestation
Then 'most people' would be incorrect. Not considering romantic attraction as separate from sexual attraction out of sheer laziness isn't a good excuse.
There's a significant number of people who don't understand that romantic and sexual attraction/orientation is separate.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SAF1991
Should same-sex marriage ceremonies be allowed to take place in ALL religious premises?
its a difficult question to answer, you cannot help who you fall in love with, if it was the opposite and the same sex were allowed to marry and a woman and a man weren't in society then I think it would change a few peoples mind if you get what im trying to say
Original post by shadowdweller
There's a significant number of people who don't understand that romantic and sexual attraction/orientation is separate.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It looks like the education system has failed them in this regard then.
Original post by Manifestation
It looks like the education system has failed them in this regard then.
I don't think that's covered by the education system.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by shadowdweller
Sex education should cover it.
Original post by Manifestation
Sex education should cover it.
It doesn't tend to covet anything beyond heteronormative.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by shadowdweller
Ugh, such a silly term. I don't see how not distinguishing between love and sex is 'heteronormative' either... I believe in equal rights for all people and obviously don't believe that heterosexuality is the only valid sexual orientation, but these labels are becoming ridiculous. 'Heterophobia', 'heterosexualism', 'heteronormative', etc., etc. When will the backlash end?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Manifestation
Ugh, such a silly term. I don't see how not distinguishing between love and sex is 'heteronormative' either... I believe in equal rights for all people and obviously don't believe that heterosexuality is the only valid sexual orientation, but these labels are becoming ridiculous. 'Heterophobia', 'heterosexualism', 'heteronormative', etc., etc. When will the backlash end?
I just mean it only ever covered the standard heterosexuality heteroromantic, it wasn't supposed to imply backlash.
Posted from TSR Mobile
it wont end. So long as religion is given a higher priority than marriage through "political correctness" or out of sheer fear of any retaliation , they will be allowed to control what they define as marriage .
People like us , who genuinely dont even care what your orientation is. If you truly love that person , we have no right as human beings to deny you what both of you want. Man with man , woman with woman. But obviously the religious folk will be up in arms.. and we wouldnt want that now would we? >.>
People like us , who genuinely dont even care what your orientation is. If you truly love that person , we have no right as human beings to deny you what both of you want. Man with man , woman with woman. But obviously the religious folk will be up in arms.. and we wouldnt want that now would we? >.>
Original post by anarchism101
In my opinion or objectively?
I am just asking is it wrong to rape someone? Either it is or it isn't. Your opinion would be irrelevant eitherway.
I agree, but they're a hell of a lot more convincing than the theist arguments,
Not at all they are completely insufficient. The only way for their to be objective morality is outside arbiter Something only God could do.
Authority only exists if people believe it exists. If people rejected a deity's claimed authority over them then it would have no authority over them, only sheer might, which is not the same thing.
First let's define authority
Authority can be defined "The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:
So in the light of this let us analyse your statement and see if it is true.
1. Authority only exists if people believe it exists.
Lets use this statement in a real life scenario. I'm driving on the motorway at 200mph .Do you think it makes a shread of difference whether I acknowledge the authority of the police to arrest me? No regardless of whether I agree or not the police will arrest me and take me to jail for breaking the law.
2.If people rejected a deity's claimed authority over them then it would have no authority over them
As i show above rejecting someones authority over you makes no difference it they have authority over you then they will excercise it. Do you think the people in prison are there because they want to be?
3.only sheer might, which is not the same thing.
"The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:
Look at the words higlighted from the definition does that imply consent? If authority required consent from its suordinates then why would it need to enforce obedience and why does it need power if it only excercises authority by consent? The difference between authority and sheer might is not consent or willingness to obey but rather authority has the legal right to enforce obedience and sheer might does no. For example the government has the authority to tax citizens where as the mafia forcing people to pay protection money would be an example of sheer might.
Authority is something that enforces obidience even on the unwilling. We see this in ordinary life all the time, i.e we break the law and we go to prison.
God has authority over the universe because he created all things he therefore has the power and the right to give orders and make decisions on the way things should be because he owns everything. The same way an author or a painter has the right to decide what happens with their work
Similarly, people can acknowledge the authority of something abstract, such as an ethical theory.
(edited 10 years ago)
But so what? Why shouldn't you cause people pain. You might not want to cause people pain but thats your personal opinion it doesn't explain to me why I shouldn't cause people pain? What if somebody else likes causing people pain should he be allowed to do so? Is it morally acceptable for him to do so? Why should he follow your moral standard and not his own?
I don't harm others because it would cause them physical and emotional pain and I would don't want to wish that on another human, no matter much they hurt me, because of my sense of empathy. With empathy, we can understand how pain hurts others and I don't want pain inflicted upon others, I want to help them have a nice day and feel as best about themselves as they possibly can. I don't want to hurt others because it's a cruel thing to do and there's enough pain in the world.
Okay, imagine the human race discovered there was no god, supernatural or higher power. Would you become inclined to hurt others? Would you hurt your family and friends?Ask yourself, if you found out there was no god and you chose not to hurt others, what would stopyou personally from hurting others? Surely your sense of empathy would come into the equation?
A book I would highly recommend is "The Moral Landscape" by humanist philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, who argues that science can help answer moral problems where religion has tried to as a "failed science."
Now for me this is simple. You don't kill people because they are made in the image of God and he has expressely told people not to kill each other.
You're stating that your morality comes from your faith, which is a belief without scientific or material evidence. I am saying that my morality comes from purely first-hand human experience and my understanding that there are good people and bad people and what the effects of their moral choices have in this tangible world.
Also, I would argue that human morality must have existed long before the evolution of religious ideology, other we would not have survived as a species. Our brain size is estimated to reached its peak growth approx 500,000 years ago which presumably would have given us the sensory ability to feel pain and question the world around us. This is way long before the concepts of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god telling us what to do came into existence. If we were all going around killing each other just because there was no god, how would we have survived as a race? Our survival would have been highly unlikely, I would guess.
But don't you see that unless there really is a God morals are nothing more than personal opinion. One person might not like killing other people but someone else might if there is no God why should a murderer care about killing someone?
Some morals are personal opinion, you're correct. People who are serial killers and murderers see their victims as non-sentient objects, not sentient and emotionally capable humans. That is what separates me from a serial killer. For example, Charles Manson viewed the Beatles as the four horsemen of the apocalypse and the Black Panthers as the demons of Satan, both mythological and superstitious supernatural characters of fiction . Even his cult of followers who he brainwashed, he most likely did not have sympathy for them as he used them to commit his homicides which he masterminded. You could that humans were toys to him, he had a sense of control over what they did. That the difference between me and a psychopath murderer, I can empathize with other humans whereas the latter would most like have a lack of empathy
There is the question of their sense of empathy, do the lack it or turn it on and off, I'm not the expert but at least as a humanist I'll admit I don't fully know all the answers. whereas religious views claim to have the answers to all of life's questions.
Also, for anyone who says that homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong because "god says so", I would still ask "Well why does he say so? What's his logic behind his view?" I've been taught that in order to provide a reliable argument, you must provide reliable evidence and reason to back it up otherwise you lose your argument as a result. Without reliable reason or evidence, you do not have a strong argument. Saying "because god say so" is not a plausible argument and to me suggests an illogical and prejudice dictatorship. I'd be welcome to hear any reasonable arguments but so far, I've heard none.
Original post by Polka Dot
Firstly I do not agree that the bible condones all of those things you list, but even if it did you are still working on the presumption that genocide and infanticide are wrong. Why are they wrong? Who says it's wrong to kill people? I agree with you that it is but why do you hold that view you have to have reason or else it is just an arbitrary opinion.
Like most people, I developed my own morals as I developed as a person in a society of structured law. Law aside, I do what I think is right personally, not because someone tells me.
I don't really see what you're trying to argue - you believe in something completely intangible and are subjectively interpreting the bible (or are you the one that's actually right, not everyone else that claims that?) It's illogical and naive to think a book that's been rewritten goodness how many times (to whoevers ends), and in a completely different era, provides objective morality.
Original post by Polka Dot
I am just asking is it wrong to rape someone? Either it is or it isn't.
Or, as I've already said, there is no objective morality and therefore the question is meaningless.
Not at all they are completely insufficient. The only way for their to be objective morality is outside arbiter Something only God could do.
Outside of what?
First let's define authority
Authority can be defined "The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:
Authority can be defined "The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:
Power and right are very different things. Having the power to do something does not give you the right to do it.
1. Authority only exists if people believe it exists.
Lets use this statement in a real life scenario. I'm driving on the motorway at 200mph .Do you think it makes a shread of difference whether I acknowledge the authority of the police to arrest me? No regardless of whether I agree or not the police will arrest me and take me to jail for breaking the law.
I didn't say anything about you individually. True, your unilateral rejection of police authority would not do much, but if it happened on a mass scale then it would.
Also, I'd argue that your unilateral rejection of police authority would simply reduce their relation to you as one of might or power, rather than authority.
2.If people rejected a deity's claimed authority over them then it would have no authority over them
As i show above rejecting someones authority over you makes no difference it they have authority over you then they will excercise it.
As i show above rejecting someones authority over you makes no difference it they have authority over you then they will excercise it.
No, they will exercise might, which is not the same.
3.only sheer might, which is not the same thing.
"The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:
Look at the words higlighted from the definition does that imply consent? If authority required consent from its suordinates then why would it need to enforce obedience and why does it need power if it only excercises authority by consent? The difference between authority and sheer might is not consent or willingness to obey but rather authority has the legal right to enforce obedience and sheer might does no. For example the government has the authority to tax citizens where as the mafia forcing people to pay protection money would be an example of sheer might.
"The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience:
Look at the words higlighted from the definition does that imply consent? If authority required consent from its suordinates then why would it need to enforce obedience and why does it need power if it only excercises authority by consent? The difference between authority and sheer might is not consent or willingness to obey but rather authority has the legal right to enforce obedience and sheer might does no. For example the government has the authority to tax citizens where as the mafia forcing people to pay protection money would be an example of sheer might.
Why does the government have authority and the mafia not? Where does the government get this 'legal right' from?
God has authority over the universe because he created all things
He didn't create the computer I'm using to type this, to give just one of many obvious examples.
he therefore has the power and the right to give orders and make decisions on the way things should be because he owns everything. The same way an author or a painter has the right to decide what happens with their work
Ownership is a social construct.
But that is not authority at all thats just a preference on the way you live your life.
No, it could conflict with your preferences.
The ethical theory holds no real authority because you can kick it off whenever it suites you. True authority is something that must be obeyed regardless of whether you want to or not.
To dictate that an authority must be obeyed you'd have to have another, higher authority to dictate such. And another to give that the authority to say so and and so on.
Original post by nicky fiction
Sadly, there's no "his/her" in this situation. Women can't be priests 
...made slightly less sad by the fact that I misspelled and wrote "women can't be pirates"!
...made slightly less sad by the fact that I misspelled and wrote "women can't be pirates"!Only the catholics ban women from preaching. Hell, there are even female Imams nowadays.
Original post by Polka Dot
They have attempted to come up with ways to have objective morality without God but none of the stand up logically. In order to have objective morality you require an authority above humanity and the only thing that could be is a deity.
http://danielmiessler.com/blog/sam-harris-destroys-moral-relativism-in-single-ted-talk
"He argues that if morality involves well-being and happiness (rather than “God’s will”), it has an empirical basis. Science can provide data on what factors are most efficient it bringing about happiness and well-being, just as it can with regard to what constitutes a state of good health and what can bring it about. Harris grants that, just as there are numerous ways to achieve good health, so also there are many ways to achieve happiness and well-being, but their effectiveness can nonetheless be scientifically investigated. Harris also argues that while happiness, well-being (and good health) cannot be defined in a completely objective and universal manner, experience and empirical data clearly show that some values and forms of behavior are more likely to result in happiness and well-being than others, e.g., if good health is a value, then consuming poison is not an effective way to realize that value; if well-being is a value, throwing acid on the face of young girls because they resist arranged marriages with men three times their age is not effective in realizing that value."
(edited 10 years ago)
Sure. I don't know why you'd want to have a same sex marriage in a building that represents complete opposition to homosexuality.
But if you want to make a point of giving religion the finger, by doing it in one of their places of worship. Then definitely do it.
Apart from that, maybe tie the knot somewhere more picturesque and naturally beautiful? Less morbid and full of evil.
Posted from TSR Mobile
But if you want to make a point of giving religion the finger, by doing it in one of their places of worship. Then definitely do it.
Apart from that, maybe tie the knot somewhere more picturesque and naturally beautiful? Less morbid and full of evil.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Fact and science should change your opinion.
Homosexuality is something that occurs in nature, on a cellular level. So to argue against it in anyway, is to say that two plus two, doesn't equal four.
Treat religion with ridicule people, and those that defend it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Homosexuality is something that occurs in nature, on a cellular level. So to argue against it in anyway, is to say that two plus two, doesn't equal four.
Treat religion with ridicule people, and those that defend it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 1 minute ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Posted 1 minute ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Social Security Scotland - Client ManagerLast reply 5 minutes ago
SIP civil service 2024 threadLast reply 6 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 13 minutes ago
Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challengeLast reply 14 minutes ago
Cannot find any apprenticeships for Child NursingLast reply 16 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
