DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No its not, and I am not. Again I'm simply saying don't lie about it and say that it is moral, because it ain't.
Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Then there is nothing wrong with bashing queers. Your first and second sentence contradict each other. If morality is subjective then what it this talk about whether sm has a right? If he wants to throw sodomites in jail then who are you to say that is wrong?
apple0154
MEOW
Like Damo you confuse the government "knowing" with the government "prohibiting" something. They are two distinct things.
But it goes further than that as I explained regarding AIDS and spousal abuse and rape and homosexuality and on and on. Those things were kept private and we witnessed the result.
People were discriminated against and ostracized because people believed there was only one homosexual in their village or the woman who was raped must have done something to warrant it.
On a passing note the internet is the most liberating device to come along. Slowly, it will open people's minds to things they thought strange, weird, rare, etc.
Morality is not subjective. Your morality is. Homosexuality offends no objective moral code. Living in denial of your sexuality, which is a response to bigots like yourself, is immoral.
apple0154
MEOW
Closeted homosexuality was/is both a response to homophobia and the continuation of it. On more than one occasion we hear of a parent finding out their offspring are gay and the parent's perception of gay changes. If more people had come forward it would have changed sooner.
Either there is a law against something or there isn't. I explained that before. If one has a right to bear arms then the government knowing one has arms does not change anything.
The more people come forward, the more things are out in the open, the more change is possible.
No, it is not the same.
They don't have to "know" your private thoughts, they only have to control what you can say to ensure that only what they want people to hear is what has been said. Through force and fear do places like N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Iran, the former Soviet Union, etc. control the thoughts and actions of their citizens, because the government doesn't recognize the right to even their thoughts, the ultimate privacy. The government of Germany violated the rights that extend from Privacy, the Germans knew it, and through fear were compelled into apathy at best, collusion at worst.
Yes, when the Germans rounded up the Jews they knew the reason. Shoot, they made them live in a specific area of town and made it illegal for them to be anywhere without a nice little star sewn onto their shirt, when the shop owner down the street disappeared there was no "wondering" why, they had painted "Juden" all over the walls and windows. Privacy doesn't allow the government to "get away with things", only fear does, because government has the power of force we work to limit their capacity to use it. What allows governments to violate your rights is people who are willing to give up essential liberty for "security".
We created rules for our government in the hopes we could stave off what the Germans endured through checks and balances. Unfortunately fools and the uneducated are far more willing to give up their rights.
Individual rights are not the danger, they weren't in Germany. Neimoller spoke of how through his own fear the government was able to compel him into apathy when action was needed, he lamented that, but it wasn't privacy that caused it, it was the violation of privacy.
Because of this, and because of the natural tendency of governments to draw more power to themselves, to "protect" every aspect of your life, government should be used sparingly, only when absolutely necessary, and given a short leash.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, there is nothing wrong with bashing homosexuals, he has that right. He does not have the right to force them not to have sex with each other. He can tell them not to, he can tell them why he thinks it is wrong. But he most certainly cannot force them to do his bidding.
The first and second do not contradict. Morality IS subjective. Therefore an individual (or group) does not have the right to dictate what others moral behavior should be.
If morality was objective, it would be clear cut. Obviously morals are not, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That wasn't what I asked and you know it. That is an example of deliberate anti-reading comprehension syndrome (DARCS is what science has begun to call it).
Why do they make laws that specific business not be open on a certain day of the week that they hold their services? These blue laws were created because of the Christian lobby, they are maintained because of the Christian lobby, and their sole purpose is to make sure their "flock" doesn't lope on off to the car lot or the liquor store... They are stupid laws, created for a purpose that any level of government has no business participating in...
More people would have come forward more quickly had society (the government) recognized their right of privacy and wrote laws accordingly to protect them from others violating those rights.
The reality is, government finally recognizing the right (for whatever reason) of people to love whom they will rather than try to force them into a dogmatic religious set of rules (how they think and love is again a simple extension of privacy).
It wasn't until some braver people worked past the fear induced by inaction of the government, which was caused by the fact that such inaction allowed others to violate their "privacy" (right to assemble, their property, their clubs), that the government (society) even began to realize that this was something that should be protected.
The function of government should be solely to protect the rights of the individual citizen, that would mean protecting them from attack from their neighbors due to the "ick" factor.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
There is no objective moral code apart from God. Look what happens when societies try and create their own morality: slavery, euthanasia, genocide, infanticide.
Your baseless accusation of "bigot" is an ad-hom; a debate point for me.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There is no objective moral code apart from God. Look what happens when societies try and create their own morality: slavery, euthanasia, genocide, infanticide.
Your baseless accusation of "bigot" is an ad-hom; a debate point for me.
whose God?
You put your FAITH in what MEN wrote. You put your FAITH in the fact that those words were from 'GOD'... You put your FAITH in the hopes that those men didn't err when writing down the stories that 'GOD' told them.... which is odd given that most Christian religions use only FOUR of the books written by the apostles of Christ. What happened to the other 8 (or seven if you wish to leave Judas out)????
There is NOTHING baseless in calling you a bigot given your attitude towards homosexuals and your constant desire to force your SUBJECTIVE morality upon them.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The other 8 were scrutinized by a council of learned scholars and tossed out because they did not meet the objective standards that you yourself express concerns about.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The other 8 were scrutinized by a council of learned scholars and tossed out because they did not meet the objective standards that you yourself express concerns about.
LMAO.... so they selectively and subjectively chose which ones were from God... right.
I wonder then... do you consider those scholars infallible? Or again... were they just men subjecting the decision of which to include based upon their personal beliefs?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The council determined that the writings were not from God.
Infallible? Hardly. But a learned council is the best method that men have to make decisions.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
funny... but I would think the 12 men who were closest to Jesus would be the best to determine what it is GOD said.... rather than a 'learned council' a few hundred years after the fact whose interest was in promoting a consistent message and thus they buried those books not in tune with the message they wanted to convey to control their congregations.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The 4 gospel books were actually being used by the generations of Christians after they were written up to the council. The other ones were not. That's pretty much the major deciding factor in how the NT was compiled. An aging bishop would lay hands on his student to succeed him, and pass on any religious texts he had in his possessions.
Unlike today, where Christians are partisan toward our Bible, its not like these people had as much stake in having certain gospel accounts heard and others not.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I think so too, which is why the council looked at the writings to ascertain that they were indeed written by those who knew Jesus as a man (or by their legitimate students who captured the historical accounts correctly).
I meant bashing in the literal sense.
If morality is subjective there is no such thing as rights. Rights are nothing more than moral principles.
What you are saying is...
Morality IS subjective. Therefore, it is not morally permissible (i.e., there is no right) for an individual or group to dictate what others moral behavior should be.
...
Who says they don't have such a right? What subjective moral standard are you applying to prohibit such actions?
Morality is often clear cut. For instance, initiations of force are clearly and objectively wrong. But moral choices often depend on the details of a situation. It's contextual. Subjective implies something much different, i.e., that there are no absolute right and wrongs. There are.
What are you talking about? The bible is made up of stories of God's chosen engaging in slavery, genocide and infanticide.
There is no objective moral code in religions based on Judeo-Christian concepts of God.