Thread Title At TSZ Headlines Moral Confusion of Materialists

_{William Murray

May 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Irish Voters Do the Right Thing. Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual

There is no “the” right thing under materialism and moral subjectivism. There is no “the” wrong side. Had Irish voters elected to round up and execute all gays and lesbians, under materialism and moral subjectivism that too would have been a right thing. Had they elected to lobotomize them, that too would have been a right thing, made right by that which legitimizes as right any subjective moral or ethical good under materialism: the individual, or the group, or the community, or the society, or the culture consider a thing to be good or right.

That headline corrected for logical consistency under materialism and moral subjectivism would be: “Irish Voters Do the Right Thing What I Personally Preferred. Church Was On the Wrong Side, In Disagreement With My Personal Preferences As Usual.”

Only a moral outlook where morality is guided by an absolute, objective commodity can be logically consistent with that thread headline. Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality. As I have said before, materialists cannot even act or argue as if materialism is true.

Comments

sean, "It’s not hard for materialists to justify a solid moral system," Show me how that works. Begin with matter alone and provide the logical pathway to morality.StephenB_{May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

sean... I wouldn't be surprised if someone here would desire to call you name that rhymes with element Boron (B). You need to honestly inform yourself and evaluate terrible situation leading to Ireland's vote. Instead you are insulting us in standardized politically correct jargon. You are not at the Oscars, you are at the discussion forum. We don't buy it. For homework inform yourself about how many millions Atlantic Philanthropies paid for mass brainwashing of Irish people http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2015/05/atlantic-philanthropies-stop-meddling.htmlEugen_{May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

The only fair response to William J Murray’s flatulent crap is to note that he dislikes anything he thinks resembles “materialism and moral subjectivism” and does what he can to present them in a bad light. Apparently Mr. Murray believes the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” does not apply to him. Talk about your “moral subjectivism”! I know of no person who claims to be a materialist who’d sign on to any of the nonsense that Mr. Murray spews. It’s not hard for materialists to justify a solid moral system, but Mr. Murray will never acknowledge that because it’s not in his interest to do so. And it won’t exactly replicate his prejudices. So be it. And congratulations to the people of Ireland who voted with their consciences to repudiate bigotry. The world is a better place for that. sean s.sean samis_{May 28, 2015
May
05
May
28
28
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

If every human would behave like hrun0815 would that be harmful or beneficial for the human race? It takes a second to answer - harmful! :DEugen_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Eugen @39:
Therefore I conclude that homosexuality among others is harmful behavior.
Oh yeah. And don't forget birth control! Or abstinence! Or how about not growing food? That's one awesome thought experiment you thought up.hrun0815_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Phoodoo @ 14 As quoted from E. Little:
Whereas I would say: there are as many ways of trying to discern a theistically ordained “objective” morality as there are at least of religions, and probably of people. In other words, the discernment process is entirely subjective, and, moreover, uses irrelevant data (scriptures for instance). Whereas the non-theistic version has the benefit of being the result of a consensus view on the goal of a moral system (minimise harm, for instance), supported by actual evidence of what actions are best suited to achieving it.
Whereas 41 million Americans who voted against gay marriage across 20 states were overruled by 23 unelected (ordained) judges who interpreted the 14th Amendment (scriptures) with a morally secular liberal bias? What is the difference in a theocracy run by leaders who believe they are ruling based on a perceived ‘god’ or a perceived ‘good’?Heartlander_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

When one seriously comes to understand the classical philosophical tradition represented by Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas – and not merely the potted caricatures of it that even many professional philosophers, to their shame, tend to rely on – one learns just how contingent and open to question are the various modern, and typically “naturalistic,” philosophical assumptions that most contemporary thinkers (and certainly most secularists) simply take for granted without rational argument. And since the classical tradition is theistic and supernaturalist through and through, one also comes to see how powerful are the rational foundations of the Western religious tradition. Indeed, one comes to realize that the very possibility of reason and morality is deeply problematic at best on a modern naturalistic conception of the world, but perfectly intelligible on the classical philosophical worldview and the religious vision it sustains. More than that: One comes to see that it is very likely only on the classical Western philosophical-cum-religious worldview that we can make sense of reason and morality. The truth is precisely the opposite of what secularism claims: Only a (certain kind of) religious view of the world is rational, morally responsible, and sane; and an irreligious worldview is accordingly deeply irrational, immoral, and indeed insane. Secularism can never truly rest on reason, but only on “faith,” as secularists themselves understand that term (or rather misunderstand it, as we shall see): an unshakable commitment grounded not in reason but rather in sheer willfulness, a deeply ingrained desire to want things to be a certain way regardless of whether the evidence shows they are that way. [E.Feser, 'The Last Superstion', Ch.1] [my emphasis]
Box_{May 27, 2015
May
05
May
27
27
2015
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

Starbuck: God has no control over his nature... That statement makes no sense.Mung_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

WJM, thanks for the discussion. Yes, we do agree on the basics and it is, indeed, hard to know exactly where to draw the line. I appreciate the opportunity to compare our individual points of emphasis.StephenB_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Objective moral duties are grounded in the Nature of God.
That still makes even theistic morality subjective. God has no control over his nature, it is entirely possible that god could have had a different nature, a bizarro universe where rape and genocide are actually commanded by god. Oh wait thats the bible isnt it.Starbuck_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Our intuition and common sense may tell us if certain human behavior is beneficial or not. Some behaviors are rare so their effect is diluted in general population. That's why I would like to do a thought experiment to amplify the effect. For example we can imagine that the whole human race behaves in certain way and then evaluate if that is harmful or beneficial for humanity as a whole. If every human would behave aggressively would that be harmful or beneficial for the human race? It takes a second to answer -harmful. Therefore we can conclude that there are some harmful and some beneficial behaviors. After few thought experiments we can see that harmful behaviors would be: aggressiveness, alcoholism, homosexuality, gambling etc. List of beneficial behaviors would be: politeness, moderation, heterosexuality, compassion and so on. Therefore I conclude that homosexuality among others is harmful behavior. It is wrong for government/corporations to promote any harmful behavior. In case of Irish people's vote the outcome was inevitable. Millions of dollars were spent to put Ireland under strong pressure and conditioning program for 10 years.Eugen_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB said:
But without the influence of the natural moral law, many will interpret those words in a self- serving way. Those who destroy unborn children in the womb do so in the name of freedom and quality of life, i.e. their freedom and their quality of life.
Clearly, abortion is a case of entirely erroneous thinking and we agree that this relates to a necessary first responsibility of a good civil law.
Indeed, the very definition of the word “freedom” and “harm” is at stake here. Is freedom the right to do what one ought to do, which includes the freedom from bad things, such as oppression, and the freedom for good things, such as the internal capacity to achieve a noble purpose. Or, is it simply the right to do anything one pleases, which ignores the internal component altogether. Am I “free” to play the piano if I am too lazy to practice? Under those circumstances, it hardly matters if someone passes a law that forbids musical expression.
Well, one is free to do whatever they can do regardless of what any law says. Law doesn't prevent behavior, it attempts to direct, promote or prevent behavior. At the end of the day, regardless of what laws exist moral or immoral, we're still ultimately responsible for our actions and living up to our moral destiny.
Is the meaning of “harm” limited to physical, financial, or psychological issues, or should it also include cultural moral factors that affect one’s capacity to practice virtue or the proclivity to fall into vice. Definition: A good culture is one in which it is easy to be good and hard to be bad; a bad culture is one in which it is easy to be bad and hard to be good. What kind of freedom ignores these kinds of issues? What is the point of freedom and the absence of harm if not to facilitate the good life and promote the common good? Surely, freedom cannot be synonymous with license. Surely, freedom for the sake of freedom cannot be the guiding principle.
There's another way of looking at this argument; what is the value of an easy moral choice, compared to the value of a difficult moral choice that imperils one's life and liberty? IMO, this is why harm and evil are allowed to exist: they are necessary to reveal the very nobility you describe, as well as other great attributes of moral character. It's easy to make moral choices when government and society greases the path; and then, once used to abiding civil law as proxy for natural law, it's easy to forget that civil law is not the arbiter of what is right and then go along with immoral civil laws. I don't think it is the government's job to make it easy for us to be moral; I think it is the government's job to give us the opportunity to be moral and to protect our right to make those choices as much as possible, even while it protects the rights of those in society that would make it difficult for us to make moral choices - protect their right to not serve us, to vilify us, to ostracize us, to present us with temptation or offensive lifestyles or habits, etc.
We know, for example, that early sexual identity can be influenced by the social environment. Should a gay couple be “free” to adopt children? If so, should they be free to raise it as a homosexual?
I don't really think this is a valid part of your argument. Children are born into entirely legal, very bad environments that "teach" those children that all sorts of immoral things are okay. Being raised by gay parents cannot be said, IMO (but I'm open to argument otherwise), to be any worse than any of those other situations. To the point of appropriate mental faculty, the child is not responsible for the situation they are in and how that situation influences their behavior. When they reach adulthood, however, they're would be in the same situation as any other adult with bad childhood influences. I certainly don't think my reasoning on this is perfect and I greatly appreciate the fantastic arguments and thoughts you provide so that I can examine my views and amend them. I think we completely agree on the basics, and the only thing we disagree on is where to draw the line. For me, that "line" is more like a big fat gray zone. I'm not really sure where to draw that line in many cases and tend to err on the side of libertarianism.William J Murray_{May 26, 2015
May
05
May
26
26
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

New Mad Max movie is showing. In Mad Max movies craziness is so prevalent that it becomes new normal. Average, simple, normal people look out of place and are supposed to be exterminated. It sometimes feels like that when we look at some events today. Thanks for great post and discussion to all, it is very informative for me and many others, I'm sure.Eugen_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

I don’t think “legalizing” same-sex “marriage” doesn’t matter, but I think there may be some merit to the suggestion some are making now that the Church get out of the civil marriage business altogether. Christians would either be married in the eyes of God and the Church or they wouldn’t, regardless of whatever strange and unnatural arrangements Caesar decides to refer to as “marriage.”
I agree. That doesn't mean Christian's should refrain from attempting to influence Caesar, only that "what is moral" is not dictated to Christians (or anyone else) by Caesar. As far as incest, I think that protecting life and liberty entails protecting the liberty of those deemed not fully capable of making informed decisions on their own, which would include anyone below a certain standard of age and and IQ. Beyond that, yes, the reasoning is sound - the state would have just as much standing to legalize incestuous and polygamous "marriage" as same-sex marriage. As wrong or as distasteful as such consenting adult relationships might be, I still feel we must protect the rights of adults to make such decisions, as long as no one else is forced to act as if they condone those decisions. However, the case against legalized abortion is fundamentally much stronger under my perspective. Life precedes liberty, and life must be protected or else liberty means nothing, so the rights of the unborn fundamentally exceed the rights of the living and their liberty. No one has the liberty to unilaterally end the life of another except under extreme circumstances (which some abortions might fall under), like self-defense. "Inconvenience" certainly doesn't rise to the level of necessary criteria for ending someone else's life.William J Murray_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

WJM
Because infanticide exists in the wild doesn’t mean that it is moral for humans to engage in it; similarly, because self-reflective, logical thought and analysis doesn’t seem to appear elsewhere in nature doesn’t mean humans shouldn’t engage in it.
Precisely. According to the natural moral law, the morality proper to humans, who have rational souls, is different from the behavioral standards for animals, who do not.StephenB_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

WJM
IMO, what should prevail is the core concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People should be as free as possible to live the lives they choose, and such freedom should be sanctioned by and protected by the state and held as a fundamental right to destroy ourselves if we wish. IMO, that is the most profound truth of free will: god gave us – officially, divinely sanctioned – our freedom to destroy ourselves by giving us free will and life and a moral compass to abide or ignore at our discretion.
William, I am grateful that you have taken the time to discuss this matter with me. Clearly, the main theme of your post is unassailable. I support it enthusiastically. It is a noble thing, indeed, to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But without the influence of the natural moral law, many will interpret those words in a self- serving way. Those who destroy unborn children in the womb do so in the name of freedom and quality of life, i.e. their freedom and their quality of life. Indeed, the very definition of the word “freedom” and “harm” is at stake here. Is freedom the right to do what one ought to do, which includes the freedom from bad things, such as oppression, and the freedom for good things, such as the internal capacity to achieve a noble purpose. Or, is it simply the right to do anything one pleases, which ignores the internal component altogether. Am I “free” to play the piano if I am too lazy to practice? Under those circumstances, it hardly matters if someone passes a law that forbids musical expression. Is the meaning of “harm” limited to physical, financial, or psychological issues, or should it also include cultural moral factors that affect one’s capacity to practice virtue or the proclivity to fall into vice. Definition: A good culture is one in which it is easy to be good and hard to be bad; a bad culture is one in which it is easy to be bad and hard to be good. What kind of freedom ignores these kinds of issues? What is the point of freedom and the absence of harm if not to facilitate the good life and promote the common good? Surely, freedom cannot be synonymous with license. Surely, freedom for the sake of freedom cannot be the guiding principle.
At its core, human government should try to mirror that fundamental premise as much as possible. If that gives certain groups the power to destroy civilization here on Earth because we’ve become incapable of rounding up the wherewithal to think correctly and act in a principled way, what of it? It’s the principle that matters here – the outcomes for everyone as the result of their choices are ultimately inescapable.
Agreed. However, the eternal outcome of one’s behavior is really nothing more than the sum total of his temporal decisions. Sew a thought; reap an act; so an act, reap a habit; sew a habit, reap a character; sew a character, reap a destiny. It is, in my judgment, unrealistic to say that civil laws are solely about temporal matters. We know, for example, that early sexual identity can be influenced by the social environment. Should a gay couple be “free” to adopt children? If so, should they be free to raise it as a homosexual? Under those circumstances, how free was that child to pursue his destiny? It seems evident to me that illegitimate expressions of freedom on one end of the scale can stifle or even eradicate legitimate expressions of freedom on the other end. If I gain the freedom not to be offended, then you lose your freedom to speak. I submit that we need the natural moral law to inform our notions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (both temporal and eternal).StephenB_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @32, First, thanks for engaging in this interesting and enjoyable discussion.
Then the state legalizing it [same-sex marriage] doesn’t matter.
I don't think "legalizing" same-sex "marriage" doesn't matter, but I think there may be some merit to the suggestion some are making now that the Church get out of the civil marriage business altogether. Christians would either be married in the eyes of God and the Church or they wouldn't, regardless of whatever strange and unnatural arrangements Caesar decides to refer to as "marriage." It still matters because what is clearly natural and what isn't matters. Suppose that a movement began that advocated the legalization of incestuous relationships between fathers and their minor daughters. You can easily imagine what their argument would be. They would use their thoroughly indoctrinated daughters to make it:
Don't impose your anachronistic views of sexual morality on us. We have a right to choose to do what we want in the privacy of our own homes. Keep the government out of my bedroom. I fully consent to sexual activity with my father; it is my choice. Don't bother telling me about the likely negative results of inbreeding -- I use contraception and if that fails it is perfectly legal for me to terminate the pregnancy. It is not like we want this to be legal for mere children, after all, I am sixteen years old and fully capable of deciding for myself whether this is what I want or not.
A similar argument could be made for the "legalization" of homosexual relations between a father and his son, or heterosexual relations between a mother and her son, and so on. Before you dismiss such scenarios as simply so far fetched as to be ridiculous, peruse the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) web site, where the legalization of homosexual relationships between adult men and minor boys is advocated. I will understand if readers simply don't want to navigate to such a web site. But trust me, that is what they want. On what basis would we argue against such things if we have accepted the just-as-unnatural "legalization" of same-sex marriage? If what is natural just doesn't matter, then we have no argument against any of those things, except that they all involve the unnatural exploitation and abuse of children. We have obligations to the brainwashed children in each of those unnatural situations, as we do to the children who will grow up without a father, or without a mother, because they were adopted by a "legally" married same-sex couple. One more example of how extreme the assault on the traditional view of human sexuality has become. This is from the Journal of Medical Ethics and demonstrates the intensity of the war on the natural:
Abstract Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call "after-birth abortion" (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
They want human sexuality to be so far removed from its primary, natural purpose -- procreation -- that they are attempting to mainstream blatant infanticide. The entire piece can be read here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.fullharry_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Harry said:
You, me and Thomas Aquinas agree that not all things that are immoral should be illegal. But the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal is like the question of whether it should be legal to keep unicorns within the city limits. There are simply no such things as unicorns or same-sex marriages.
Then the state legalizing it doesn't matter. As we both said, if there is no such thing as same-sex marriage, then it's nothing but a label on something that doesn't really exist and everyone will still have to pay the piper at the end regardless of any label that was legally applied.William J Murray_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @11
But the question of if same-sex marriage is moral, and the question of if same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal, are two different questions. … IMO, all sorts of things that may be immoral should still be legal ...
You, me and Thomas Aquinas agree that not all things that are immoral should be illegal. But the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal is like the question of whether it should be legal to keep unicorns within the city limits. There are simply no such things as unicorns or same-sex marriages. Yet there definitely are some things that are immoral that should be illegal, and in fact, no human authority can make legal. They are intrinsically illegal. To a man, the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials claimed that all they had done was "legal" and fully sanctioned by the state. They were hung or imprisoned for life. There are some things no state can make legal. The state can't make legal that which is intrinsically and gravely evil. Humanity knew that those in power killing innocent humans by the millions was intrinsically illegal and gravely evil, and that no state could make that legal. And why was that? Because humanity precedes the state and brings it into existence. The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. Humanity brings the state into existence to protect its inalienable rights, the first of which is the right to life itself. The state does not bestow that right upon humanity, nor can it withdraw it from innocent human beings. It is humanity that bestows and withdraws the state's right to exist, not the reverse. This is why taking the life of the child in the womb has never been and will never be legal. As for "legalizing" same-sex marriage, the state can't decree away reality by decreeing that unicorns can be kept within city limits or by pretending there is such a thing as same-sex marriage.
Nature, through the “plumbing” of males and females, even if there were no other indications of the non-existence of same-sex marriage (which there most certainly are), couldn’t have made that fact more clear. -- harry Because infanticide exists in the wild doesn’t mean that it is moral for humans to engage in it; similarly, because self-reflective, logical thought and analysis doesn’t seem to appear elsewhere in nature doesn’t mean humans shouldn’t engage in it. -- William J Murray
No one is saying that humanity must imitate the rest of nature in all respects, doing only what it sees done in the rest of nature, and not doing what it doesn't see done in the rest of nature. What human “plumbing” makes clear is what is natural according to human nature. Rationality is an aspect of human nature, and unlike other creatures humans can apply reason to even the most cursory examination their own anatomy and their environment, and see that marriage, i.e., a commitment of a man and a woman to each other and to the raising of any children resulting from their union, is natural, and is essential to the survival of the human race. Outside of marriage there are other ways companionship can be found, other ways a committed relationship can be formed, and other ways sexual gratification can be found. Those other ways are not marriage. The state can pretend they are marriage. The state can coerce people into pretending they are marriage. But that won't change the fact that marriage is what it is, and that those other things are not marriage, certainly not those that are unnatural and clearly contrary to that which is easily ascertained about human nature. A final thought. Homosexual orientation is a disorder. It is no more sinful in itself than being born blind is sinful. Even if one's homosexual orientation was not genetically inevitable, but was brought about by one's own choices, once one has that orientation, it is not the orientation itself that is sinful; it is homosexual fornication (like heterosexual fornication) that is sinful. I only point this out because it seems to me that many Christians fail to make this distinction.harry_{May 25, 2015
May
05
May
25
25
2015
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Robert Byers,
Homosexuality is evil and repulsive and must be rejected.
Heterosexuality can also be pretty repulsive. Don't believe me? Just stop by your local Walmart.daveS_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Those Ireland citizens who voted for gay marriage did the wrong thin morally and intellectually and so on. Marriage was created and only is about the man and the woman, aduld, unrelated getting into a intimate relationship for life. Not for love or kids. God created this union and indeed woman was only created for this purpose. otherwise she would be just another guy. Therefore to allow same sex marraiage is literally to destroy marriage. Literally. Marriage was not only JUST created for opposite sex adults, unrelated, but marriage came second as a concept to that relationship. The relationship came first and someone called it marriage. There can not be gay marriage but only marriage is destroyed and a new concept of adults , unrelated, getting into intimate union. At least in Ireland the people decide. In north america its a judge dictatorship. Just persuade enough people in Ireland to restore MARRIAGE and restore the only moral and beautiful union between such intimate adults of opposite sex. Homosexuality is evil and repulsive and must be rejected. Homosexuals are not evll and must be loved and our friends but must be directed to be accurate or inactive in these things.Robert Byers_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have? All those I have asked this question of answer 5. The right answer? 4. It doesn't matter what you call a tail - a cow still has 4 legs.ronvanwegen_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB said:
Shouldn’t the civil law reflect the principles inherent in the natural moral law?
Not necessarily. Natural moral law renders its own rewards and punishments unfailingly, regardless of what humans do. Civil law is not required to adjudicate moral rewards and punishments, and problematically, civil law provides humans a powerful tool by which their failings and errors can be imposed on others in the name of natural law morality. It's my view that in order to account for the fallibility and failings of human nature, civil law should provide humans with the maximum amount of freedom possible, even to do immoral things, as long as it falls within the consent of adults and their free will choices and is reasonably non-harmful to others.
Without the latter, we would have no way of knowing which manifestations of the former are just or unjust. If same sex marriage violates the natural moral law, isn’t it unjust to make it a part of the civil law?
I don't think it is the rightful purpose of civil law to attempt to codify natural law and attempt to serve as a delivery system for moral justice, beyond serving as the protector of human life and liberty - and yes, the liberty to do immoral things inasmuch as they reasonably do not harm other people.
It is a strange thing about legal “rights. They are always distributed in the form of a zero-sum gain. To grant a right to one person or group is to automatically take away a right from another person or group. If you have the immediate right of way at a four way stop, I lose that same right by definition. If you gain the right to a free college education, I lose my right to keep some of my money. Accordingly, gay rights automatically trump the Christian’s right to religious freedom. If a Christin must, by law, cater to same-sex “weddings,” then he loses the right to act according to his conscience. So it is with so-called gay marriage. If gays have a right to marry, then Christians lose their right to influence the culture.
Under my view of law as protector of life and liberty, no law should be able to coerce a person to cater to a same sex wedding - or cater to a black wedding, or cater to a liberal wedding if the owner does not wish to. If the marriage of a gay couple is not actually marriage under natural law, then they will have to pay the moral price, and the state recognizing the union under the term "marriage" will not change that one bit. All the state did, in that scenario, was attach the same label on a moral and an immoral act. As we both know with "free will", attaching the same label to two different things doesn't change the nature of those things, or their ramifications, one bit, whether the label is sanctioned by the state or not.
Suddenly, the state, not God, is the arbiter of right and wrong.
If the state says same-sex morality is wrong and makes it illegal, the same thing is going on, even if in this case god and the state are in agreement. But, this is exactly why I don't consider civil law a proper vehicle for codifying natural law; it makes the state the arbiter of morality whether or not it lines up correctly with natural law. Civil law should not be seen or used as something which attempts to codify every aspect of natural law because that leaves it wide open to error and terrible abuse.
Suddenly, the civil law, backed by sanctions, penalties, and persecutions, rules that gay values will trump Christian values. Indeed, the whole point of gay marriage is to eradicate Christianity in particular–not generic Theism–not Islam–not Deism, not Eastern mysticism. but Cbristianity There is no question about it.
Which is why the scope of civil law must be limited to what is necessary to protect life and liberty, not to adjudicate all aspects of our moral lives. The more power you give a righteous government, the more power you have given the wicked government that soon follows.
So, whose rights should prevail when there is a fundamental conflict of values? Isn’t that question answered by “The Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God?”
Well, IMO, what should prevail is the core concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. People should be as free as possible to live the lives they choose, and such freedom should be sanctioned by and protected by the state and held as a fundamental right to destroy ourselves if we wish. IMO, that is the most profound truth of free will: god gave us - officially, divinely sanctioned - our freedom to destroy ourselves by giving us free will and life and a moral compass to abide or ignore at our discretion. At its core, human government should try to mirror that fundamental premise as much as possible. If that gives certain groups the power to destroy civilization here on Earth because we've become incapable of rounding up the wherewithal to think correctly and act in a principled way, what of it? It's the principle that matters here - the outcomes for everyone as the result of their choices are ultimately inescapable. It's true that at its root, any civil law should be a codification of some natural law or right, but IMO liberty demands that we only codify as much as the natural law as necessary to protect life and liberty.William J Murray_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Jim Smith
According to Theism is same-sex marriage moral?
Since creation implies reproduction homosexual acts are immoral since you have the option to reproduce and you don't do it, you don't create new humans. New World Order Neo-Marxism wants to make everyone homogeneous and not equal, homogeneity is NOT equality, homosexuals are humans as you and me and that makes them equal but they are different. If the state accepts their choices it will lead inevitably to the acceptance of every choice even pederasty.
JimFit_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Seversky
So tell me how you get from an undefined Creator – not necessarily the Christian God – to morality being an objective “commodity”? How are a god’s views on morality any more objective than yours or mine?
Objective moral duties are grounded in the Nature of God. God is transcendent and capable only for Good because He is Eternal, He created us out of unconditional love, unconditional love doesn’t aim somewhere and it is the only action an Eternal God can have due to His Infinite nature, that’s why God can be only Good, evil actions target somewhere and for that reason for an eternal God to do evil is purposeless, evil is purposeless on infinity. Moral teachings must be transcendent, the universal teaching “Don’t do unto others, what you wouldn’t want done unto you.” will apply even if we go to the moon or back in time because it is a transcendent teaching, spaceless and timeless, we recognize moral truths from their transcendence. Our transcendent conscience precedes the material world and it is the moral guide for our actions, even if you are an atheist you think with transcendence and that debunks Materialism.JimFit_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

According to Theism is same-sex marriage moral? Already been answered.Mung_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

"consensus view" Sadly morality is for some a fashion statement,personal opinion or jumping on latest bandwagon.Eugen_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality.
According to Theism is same-sex marriage moral?Jim Smith_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

WJM
But the question of if same-sex marriage is moral, and the question of if same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal, are two different questions.
Shouldn't the civil law reflect the principles inherent in the natural moral law? Without the latter, we would have no way of knowing which manifestations of the former are just or unjust. If same sex marriage violates the natural moral law, isn't it unjust to make it a part of the civil law? It is a strange thing about legal "rights. They are always distributed in the form of a zero-sum gain. To grant a right to one person or group is to automatically take away a right from another person or group. If you have the immediate right of way at a four way stop, I lose that same right by definition. If you gain the right to a free college education, I lose my right to keep some of my money. Accordingly, gay rights automatically trump the Christian's right to religious freedom. If a Christin must, by law, cater to same-sex "weddings," then he loses the right to act according to his conscience. So it is with so-called gay marriage. If gays have a right to marry, then Christians lose their right to influence the culture. Suddenly, the state, not God, is the arbiter of right and wrong. Suddenly, the civil law, backed by sanctions, penalties, and persecutions, rules that gay values will trump Christian values. Indeed, the whole point of gay marriage is to eradicate Christianity in particular--not generic Theism--not Islam--not Deism, not Eastern mysticism. but Cbristianity There is no question about it. So, whose rights should prevail when there is a fundamental conflict of values? Isn't that question answered by "The Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God?"StephenB_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

As a Christian, I see the morality and legality of same sex marriage as being no different than say, divorce. Divorce, too, is immoral and illegal in the sight of God but Moses gave married couples the legal right to divorce one another. Why? It's because Moses understood something important about humans: we are not perfect. I am not opposed to same sex marriage for the same reason that I am not opposed to divorce. Having said that, one must understand that marriage in the time of Moses was a transaction between a man and a woman. Only males could inherit real property from their fathers and real property could be neither bought nor sold; it could only be leased or inherited. Women received their inheritance only through marriage. By law, a woman was part owner of the property of her husband. None of this is true anymore. Marriage means something different today.Mapou_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply