I am not an American, but I assume the answer to the last question would be “The Constitution”, wouldn’t it?
The laws you present as examples above were not based on moral but on rational choices. They simply strive to prevent the population from suffering unwanted deaths. You do not have to make a moral or religious argument to justify that.
I apologize if I am doing you an injustice here, but that sounds unconvincing. You are saying you want diversity, but your entire argument gives me the impression that you really only want that as long as it is happening on your own terms.
It is impossible for society to acommodate the religous or moral beliefs of all its citizens. Your Hindu neighbors would probably prefer if no cows were killed in their neighborhood, Muslims dislike the depiction of sentient beings … The list goes on. Eating a beefsteak or owning a depiction of Jesus Christ is an immoral act in their view. Should they be able to outlaw it, if they can get a majority vote somewhere? No. They can of course abstain from doing it themselves, but they have to live with other people doing it - even if it is their innermost firm conviction that it is wrong. That has nothing to do with “laissez faire”. It has a lot to do with humility. Accepting that you are no better than the other guy means you must also accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the other guy has chosen the “true” faith.
If you go back to the Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument, it provides some great logic and that is what I think you are looking for. It might not make sense to you but it does to me because of faith. The Bible in Hebrews 11 defines faith as: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
God cannot be disproven or concretely validated; does that make Him the bad guy?
I appreciate that you are sharing your thoughts with me and that you struggle with the “Jesus” thing.
If we all agree that death is a bad thing then abortion would have been declared illegal in the United States, yet convenience outweighed morality.
I am honest in my response. I do want diversity, if there was none then where would be great great music, beautiful art, immaculate architecture, famous writers, etc… I also know that Christianity is not the choice everyone will make, but if we wanted a pure melting pot of the majority then I’m sure the Muslims and Jews would also disagree with legalized homosexuality. I am not well versed on all the other major religions and where they stand on this subject.
I appreciate your outside (non-US) interaction and point of view.
The line of moral standards is far less firm than you make it out to be. You are firm in your belief that homosexuality is immoral - a belief that comes as much from tradition as from actual faith.
Less than 50 years ago the vast majority of the citizens in your country thought the same of interracial marriages. It took a SCOTUS ruling in 1967 to overturn laws that made such marriages illegal. The SCOTUS decision met with widespread opposition among the population. Only 20% approved of interracial marriages, while more than 70% disapproved. I am sure many of the latter also predicted a “lowering of moral standards” at the time. Today we know that they were only being backwards. I cannot prove to you, that the same sex marriage will one day be seen in the same light. But shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility?
Great point, though I have no response to that. I have no problem with interracial marriages and never have had a problem. I am also not aware of Biblical morality which condemns this type of union.
Your facts on based on the popular vote whose standards are not concrete and thus ebbs and flows as what is wrong now will be right tomorrow and vise versa.
Come on! It is not that simple, and you know it.
If you want to make it that simple, you would have to outlaw the death penalty, the army, even slaughterhouses. All involve death. You really want so say that all people, who agree that death is a bad thing would support that?
Yes, death is a bad thing. That is why you are not allowed to text while driving. You avoid deaths for the very small price of getting that message out a few minutes later.
We could probably avoid a few more traffic deaths by outlawing cars altogether, but that price would be too high. Death is bad but losing freedom is bad too. You cannot always deal in absolutes.
In the U.S., a big part of the answer is the Constitution.
A key part of the Constitution is the 14th Amendment.
A vital part of the 14th Amendment is the equal protection clause, where everyone is guaranteed equal protection of the laws.
A law against adultery could pass constitutional muster, so long as it was applied to everyone equally. A law against gay marriage fails this condition, as it is applied to a minority group in a discriminatory fashion. The Supreme Court has ruled on anti-sodomy laws, and found them unacceptable (largely on privacy grounds. It’s nobody’s business to know if certain kinds of sex acts are going on.)
I did not mean to suggest that you were against interracial marriages. I just wanted to show how much moral beliefs can change in a fairly short time. Societies learn.
As for the Biblical viewpoint: At the time the BIble was indeed used to justify opposition to interracial marriages. As is so often the case, the quotes that were used do not explicitly say that they refer to interracial marriage, but those who used them interpreted them as such:
I want to be clear that I do not believe that any of these passages actually was intended to speak out against interracial marriage. And there seems to be a wide consensus among Bible scholars today that they were not.
And yet they were used to justify that very viewpoint. So maybe one should be wary of the interpretation of the NT passages that are believed to speak out against homosexuality too?
Lotta haters hating on my previous post… Well, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow… Nd i couldn’t help but wonder; how does the concept of a gay marriage look nd sound right to you guys… As far as i’m concerned, even if the bible didn’t clearly lead us to know that ‘gay marriage’ is wrong (which it did), our sense of knowing whats morally right nd acceptable should tell us that ‘gay marriage’ is wrong… This is just the devil playing on our (specifically your) ignorance…
That’s an interesting assertion, and would make for an interesting debate. I’d really like to see you support that claim with arguments. Please start a new debate thread! It’s pretty far afield of the subject here.
The subject here is why Christians feel the small bits of scripture against homosexuality is so important, when they feel free to ignore more significant scripture (such as divorce).
Why do they ignore Christ when he says to give up worldly things and rely on God?
Why do they ignore Christ when he says not to divorce?
Why do they ignore Christ when he says not to expect repayment of a loan (forget about interest!)
What’s the rule for what to ignore versus what to heed?
IMHO, the reason isn’t scripture, it’s tradition. Plus, “ick”. That’s why I say the cause is prejudice, not scripture.
I had a bad argument, regarding Leviticus, that was duly dispatched above (and thanks!) Reviewing the thread I bet I’d find a few other mistakes on my part. But are the above mistakes? If so, please explain why.
No, it doesn’t. It deliberately excludes several other possibilities, such as that Jesus might have been a man, like most others, trying to communicate his moral values in a very tough century in a rough part of the world. He could have been right about some things, and wrong about others, while being none of “liar, Lord, or lunatic.”
“What’s two plus two – and only a liar or a lunatic would say four.”
Convenience, privacy, personal autonomy, individual freedom, and the freedom from compulsion and coercion. No one should be compelled to serve someone else’s dictates – we abolished slavery and did away with military conscription. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they don’t want it.
In regard to pedophilia, I am not sure where your idea that it harms no one originates. Children who are subjected to adult sexual advances are harmed. (And if you try to move the goalpost to ephebophilia, you will run into the problem of informed consent. It is too easy for an adult to encourage a teen to engage in sex before the teen is emotionally prepared to make an informed decision.)
Really? Do you have an actual reason for this statement? Facts? Logic?
I doubt it, but if you are only going to assert your unsupported beliefs, we are never going to have our ignorance corrected. Do you actually have reasons? Or are you simply tied up in your unexamined beliefs?
Without a doubt the God of the Old Testament warned His people about having sexual relations with other nations. This was to protect them from following other gods / “standards”. In the New Testament similar things are said and for similar reasons. A Christian is to only marry another Christian less they become more susceptible to the others beliefs. I believe some of the verses you brought have have to do with this type of subject.
The Bible relates mankind to sheep which are helpless animals who wonder around aimlessly and follow anyone (good or bad) who begins to lead, that is why Jesus called Himself the Good Shepherd.
Isn’t that a little harsh? We’re not talking about carrying groceries or a wearing a uniform, we’re talking about an innocent life. Doesn’t the unborn child have a right to voice their opinion on whether to be born or killed?
We talk about a child and an adult having an affair as being wrong because the child is not in an emotional position to prepare themselves for that kind of relationship; is the fetus excluded from protection as well?
I am not against women’s rights, but I believe their are alternatives. I have an adopted child and know first hand the joy of what these kind of alternatives can bring.
No, I agree with you that it harms the child and that it is wrong. I am just trending depravity and trying to show that the line of what is right and what is wrong becomes more blurry once you lower the standard.
I wouldn’t say I “struggle” with it. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s pretty transparently bullshit that someone didn’t really think through, followed by several centuries of increasingly desperate attempts at fanwanking it into a coherent whole.
