Once again, the task of sorting the sense from the nonsense has been entrusted to me. *sigh* (no offense of course)
So, let me begin by challenging the notion that morality is subjective. This is a false assumption and most certainly a misinformed one. Observation alone should be enough to have the understanding that morality is not subjective. But, it seems observation is not enough, so I will make my point.
In any given moral dilemma, there can be any number of components which ultimately lead to a more moral, immoral, or amoral judgment. Here's a standard example: Someone develops a successful treatment for a deadly disease. They patent it, charge an arm and a leg for it, and won't let anyone develop a generic brand. Many of the people who need it can't afford it. Someone whose family member is dying of the disease steals the treatment and saves their loved one. Is there an immoral aspect to what this person has done? Yes, they stole from someone who legitimately and lawfully developed and patented a product. Is there a moral aspect to this person's behavior? Yes, they were trying to save the life of someone they loved. Is there an amoral aspect of this person's behavior? Yes, many: him or her driving their car to where the cure was held, continuing to breathe in and out as they walked, and many thousands of small, everyday decisions involved in the process of stealing the cure. Is the person's action ultimately moral, immoral, or amoral? Add up the positives and negatives of their intent and circumstances and see where this ends up on the spectrum of "greatest good" versus "greatest bad."
Does this mean that there is no rule of law in the world and we cannot be expected to force adherence to any morality at all? Of course not. If I thought that, then I couldn't have even admitted that stealing was immoral, now could I? All I'm saying, regarding the relativity of morality, is that the rule of non-contradiction proves that it must be viewed as a spectrum concept, NOT with the common "that's right, that's wrong, and that's that" attitude. More importantly, the awareness of moral complexity that this brings must be used diligently to ascertain what moral and immoral aspects of a given act exist, and to recognize that true justice reacts with appropriate severity as a result.
With respect to the LGBT movement, I think most of us, with the exception of a few, would agree that they fit into the "greatest bad" side of the spectrum. The LGBT movement certainly can't fit into the "greatest good" side, because they are trying to benefit one group of people and one group of people only, the LGBT community of course. Ask yourself this, has the LGBT community done anything at all to advance the progress of our society in general? Have they developed anything groundbreaking that will be useful to all of us?
Or have they deterred us in pursuing a greater good? I would say yes.
The LGBT movement has most certainly hindered many people in their day to day activities (protests in the middle of the street can cause major traffic slow-downs), as well as businesses (chick fil a), encouraged violence against others with differing views (i.e. some LGBT protests in Canada), and they demand that the government pass laws so as to endorse homosexual unions and be their #1 and chief advocate.
If the federal government is to give in and make it so that homosexual unions are possible nationally, then we have lost. Where does that leave the heterosexual couples and the Christian side of the argument?
Now YOUR children who are in grade school or better, are going to take classes on same sex relations as well as heterosexual relations. Children are the most impressionable little people in the whole wide world, and with parents taking less of an interest in what their children learn and are doing, it will take very little to indoctrinate the future generations of our nation, to where one day all will believe that homosexual unions are perfectly fine and acceptable.
But where does it stop? Do we make homosexual marriages legal now, yet we leave polygamy alone? And incest should be fine too right? While we're at it, let's go ahead and objectify children. And let's incorporate bestiality into this as well.
Homosexual unions will open pandora's box. These things will come to pass sooner or later because the same argument that is used in homosexual unions can and will be used in these scenarios also.
And you, Lizathrose, say that "The slippery slope fallacy you're attempting to promote is as ill-founded, as it fails to recognize, explore, and debate each issue it attempts to lump together on each issue's own merits." The ignorance of this is incredible.
What do you think our bold and brazen elected officials will say to refuse the advocates of an even more radical and diabolical scheme? What will the same people who voted for an unpopular idea in the beginning, that later achieved popularity, do or say to combat each issue separately? What happens when these "separate" issues become just as popular as the LGBT movement has become? Politicians use the LGBT movement as a pawn on the chess board. Based on it's popularity with the people, politicians who stand behind LGBT supporters garner more votes, thus earning elections for candidates who otherwise would not have a seat in any political office.
Therefor, these "separate" issues surely would be raised by initially a small group of people, and perhaps the majority of us would look down upon it in the beginning as a very unpopular idea. But with enough time it would gain supporters, and it would gain popularity, just as the LGBT movement did. And as it gains popularity, it gains attention of course, thus making it a relevant issue that our legislators would discuss.
And I contend we would see the same demonstration of a lack of integrity and moral courage, of spinelessness, that we have seen in our legislators recently regarding the issue of homosexual unions. There hasn't been a debate. The advocacy for homosexual unions is nearly universal, save for a few small communities.
The fate of the rest of the dominoes lies upon the first domino in line. If one falls, they all will.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
So, let me begin by challenging the notion that morality is subjective. This is a false assumption and most certainly a misinformed one. Observation alone should be enough to have the understanding that morality is not subjective. But, it seems observation is not enough, so I will make my point.
In any given moral dilemma, there can be any number of components which ultimately lead to a more moral, immoral, or amoral judgment. Here's a standard example: Someone develops a successful treatment for a deadly disease. They patent it, charge an arm and a leg for it, and won't let anyone develop a generic brand. Many of the people who need it can't afford it. Someone whose family member is dying of the disease steals the treatment and saves their loved one. Is there an immoral aspect to what this person has done? Yes, they stole from someone who legitimately and lawfully developed and patented a product. Is there a moral aspect to this person's behavior? Yes, they were trying to save the life of someone they loved. Is there an amoral aspect of this person's behavior? Yes, many: him or her driving their car to where the cure was held, continuing to breathe in and out as they walked, and many thousands of small, everyday decisions involved in the process of stealing the cure. Is the person's action ultimately moral, immoral, or amoral? Add up the positives and negatives of their intent and circumstances and see where this ends up on the spectrum of "greatest good" versus "greatest bad."
Does this mean that there is no rule of law in the world and we cannot be expected to force adherence to any morality at all? Of course not. If I thought that, then I couldn't have even admitted that stealing was immoral, now could I? All I'm saying, regarding the relativity of morality, is that the rule of non-contradiction proves that it must be viewed as a spectrum concept, NOT with the common "that's right, that's wrong, and that's that" attitude. More importantly, the awareness of moral complexity that this brings must be used diligently to ascertain what moral and immoral aspects of a given act exist, and to recognize that true justice reacts with appropriate severity as a result.
With respect to the LGBT movement, I think most of us, with the exception of a few, would agree that they fit into the "greatest bad" side of the spectrum. The LGBT movement certainly can't fit into the "greatest good" side, because they are trying to benefit one group of people and one group of people only, the LGBT community of course. Ask yourself this, has the LGBT community done anything at all to advance the progress of our society in general? Have they developed anything groundbreaking that will be useful to all of us?
Or have they deterred us in pursuing a greater good? I would say yes.
The LGBT movement has most certainly hindered many people in their day to day activities (protests in the middle of the street can cause major traffic slow-downs), as well as businesses (chick fil a), encouraged violence against others with differing views (i.e. some LGBT protests in Canada), and they demand that the government pass laws so as to endorse homosexual unions and be their #1 and chief advocate.
If the federal government is to give in and make it so that homosexual unions are possible nationally, then we have lost. Where does that leave the heterosexual couples and the Christian side of the argument?
Now YOUR children who are in grade school or better, are going to take classes on same sex relations as well as heterosexual relations. Children are the most impressionable little people in the whole wide world, and with parents taking less of an interest in what their children learn and are doing, it will take very little to indoctrinate the future generations of our nation, to where one day all will believe that homosexual unions are perfectly fine and acceptable.
But where does it stop? Do we make homosexual marriages legal now, yet we leave polygamy alone? And incest should be fine too right? While we're at it, let's go ahead and objectify children. And let's incorporate bestiality into this as well.
Homosexual unions will open pandora's box. These things will come to pass sooner or later because the same argument that is used in homosexual unions can and will be used in these scenarios also.
And you, Lizathrose, say that "The slippery slope fallacy you're attempting to promote is as ill-founded, as it fails to recognize, explore, and debate each issue it attempts to lump together on each issue's own merits." The ignorance of this is incredible.
What do you think our bold and brazen elected officials will say to refuse the advocates of an even more radical and diabolical scheme? What will the same people who voted for an unpopular idea in the beginning, that later achieved popularity, do or say to combat each issue separately? What happens when these "separate" issues become just as popular as the LGBT movement has become? Politicians use the LGBT movement as a pawn on the chess board. Based on it's popularity with the people, politicians who stand behind LGBT supporters garner more votes, thus earning elections for candidates who otherwise would not have a seat in any political office.
Therefor, these "separate" issues surely would be raised by initially a small group of people, and perhaps the majority of us would look down upon it in the beginning as a very unpopular idea. But with enough time it would gain supporters, and it would gain popularity, just as the LGBT movement did. And as it gains popularity, it gains attention of course, thus making it a relevant issue that our legislators would discuss.
And I contend we would see the same demonstration of a lack of integrity and moral courage, of spinelessness, that we have seen in our legislators recently regarding the issue of homosexual unions. There hasn't been a debate. The advocacy for homosexual unions is nearly universal, save for a few small communities.
The fate of the rest of the dominoes lies upon the first domino in line. If one falls, they all will.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Last edited:
