J
Obama's call for gay rights makes history
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In the end, it's clear that the ultimate conclusion of of Batman's posts is that nothing is actually right or wrong.
We should therefore feel no inhibition when imposing our views on others and oppressing them, since their rights are just social constructs that we define anyways, and imposing on other people's lives isn't actually wrong in any objective sense.
The ability to commit acts of violence as a means to impose either an individual or collective will is the only virtue that really means anything, and that would be the ultimate basis of any democratic system: might makes right, disagree with the 51% and they just might kill you.
We should therefore feel no inhibition when imposing our views on others and oppressing them, since their rights are just social constructs that we define anyways, and imposing on other people's lives isn't actually wrong in any objective sense.
The ability to commit acts of violence as a means to impose either an individual or collective will is the only virtue that really means anything, and that would be the ultimate basis of any democratic system: might makes right, disagree with the 51% and they just might kill you.
It doesn't really matter, Jimmy. If moral realism is denied then there's no reason to expect them to be rational if they espouse nihilism and make moral claims at the same time.
There's only one course of action left. She thinks her concept of "equality" should be reflected in the law? Suck it up, there are no grounds on which you can rationally argue this, and so long as we hold the majority of subjective, irrational moral opinions in terms of numerical supremacy and political power, we win.
The only thing that should concern us is our ability to impose our arbitrary will over hers and those who think like her, possibly using violence if needed. Because that's all the police, law, and courts are - tools of violence used to impose one fake and irrational moral opinion over others.
Last edited:
Again, I think this undermines Batman's case for gay marriage.
If she's espousing a philosophy of nihilism, then there are no rational moral objections she could have against a powerful evangelical political lobby imposing its will on the lives of other people. If they have the power to do so without fear of retaliation, there isn't any reason for them to not do so.
If she's espousing a philosophy of nihilism, then there are no rational moral objections she could have against a powerful evangelical political lobby imposing its will on the lives of other people. If they have the power to do so without fear of retaliation, there isn't any reason for them to not do so.
just go ahead and lay it out!
take all the time you need, show us how God didn't really mean homosexuality is sodomy, or condemned, or particularly abominable to Him, or that unless repented of it won't be punished, or all the other mystery claims you've been making.
just do it!
prove your claims!
weve already proven that while homosexuality may include sodomy acts, that sodomy cant be a sin in and of itself, becasue then married couples are also sinning together.
Law is supposed to be somewhat fixed - not set by ridiculous precedent.
justice is supposed to be blind.
B
Batman007
Guest
B
Batman007
Guest
Those are some really good points, Red_Tory, thanks for them!
I don't believe that I'm the only one who has a subjective sense of morality: I think that is everybody. I think that the only moral compass humans have is what we define for ourselves. However, it's not all about morality. I see what you're saying when you say that ultimately I'm infringing on the rights of those who think it's ok to steal, and in a way you're absolutely right! If you think about it that way then I am, which is why what you're saying is so interesting because everything anyone does is infringing on someone else's rights.
You also have to be reasonable. Like I said we live in a society with other people. Emotions are very real, they're the main driving force behind things we do. I like it when people are happy because I think happiness leads to more happiness. I find that more people are happy when it's illegal to steal, to murder, to rape. So in a way I'm infringing on the theoretical "rights" of a person by doing what I think is right instead of letting them do what they think is right. Does this contradict my philosophy? I suppose it does. However, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that there should be no laws. Again, I'm not an anarchist. I think that a lack of laws would lead to very unhappy people.
Here's something from Wikipedia that I think pertains to this:
Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."
"Right" and "wrong" is abstract, but emotions are real. I'm going to vote to do what I feel is the better thing to do. Like you said that could potentially infringe on the morality of the criminal, but as I said a while ago I believe you give up the right to break the law when you agree to live in this country. If we were in the woods where there was no structured society then this would be an entirely different conversation. As it is I live in America and in order to have a good quality of life I'm going to abide by and enforce the laws.
I don't believe that I'm the only one who has a subjective sense of morality: I think that is everybody. I think that the only moral compass humans have is what we define for ourselves. However, it's not all about morality. I see what you're saying when you say that ultimately I'm infringing on the rights of those who think it's ok to steal, and in a way you're absolutely right! If you think about it that way then I am, which is why what you're saying is so interesting because everything anyone does is infringing on someone else's rights.
You also have to be reasonable. Like I said we live in a society with other people. Emotions are very real, they're the main driving force behind things we do. I like it when people are happy because I think happiness leads to more happiness. I find that more people are happy when it's illegal to steal, to murder, to rape. So in a way I'm infringing on the theoretical "rights" of a person by doing what I think is right instead of letting them do what they think is right. Does this contradict my philosophy? I suppose it does. However, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that there should be no laws. Again, I'm not an anarchist. I think that a lack of laws would lead to very unhappy people.
Here's something from Wikipedia that I think pertains to this:
Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."
"Right" and "wrong" is abstract, but emotions are real. I'm going to vote to do what I feel is the better thing to do. Like you said that could potentially infringe on the morality of the criminal, but as I said a while ago I believe you give up the right to break the law when you agree to live in this country. If we were in the woods where there was no structured society then this would be an entirely different conversation. As it is I live in America and in order to have a good quality of life I'm going to abide by and enforce the laws.
That's kind of of contradictory to your previous statement.
Right is what is morally good and true and wrong is what is immoral or false. Without moral reality there is neither right nor wrong.
As we've been trying to say, this is the logical extension of one of your presuppositions. It makes your pressupositions about morality contrary to your presuppositions of reality. This is why I'm saying you lack introspective.
A great many harmful things feel good at the time. Using feeling good as the grounds for objective morality (which you are here doing, weather you like it or not) is extremely short-sighted.
Naturally it is good to feel good, and promote good feeling when you can, but it is a horrible basis for right and wrong, as even committing atrocities may feel good for the person doing it at the time it's done...
Entire people groups have been made happier and more prosperous through discrimination. The glory of Greece and Rome was largely built by fairly harsh oppression.
On the other side of the coin, Christianity at large has flourished most when discriminated against. Most of the early church testifies to their joy despite oppression.
Life isn't that clean cut, nor people that simple, nor is the world so small that your observation would be a meaningful measure of how set of actions affects people on the whole.
You will not truely help people unless you understand them and can promote them meeting their needs despite what they think they want. Individuals are sadly often very bad at deciding what is good for them in the long run. Introspective, understanding, and objectives all allow a person to make good choices for themselves, and allow them to help others.
B
Batman007
Guest
It's not a contradictory. I said in both things you quoted that I don't believe that things are right or wrong, besides what we as a society labels them.
It is logical I suppose. I do see where you're coming from. However, I think that I can help society. Call me selfish, sure! The more I think about it the more I think the reason anything truly does anything is for selfish reasons. I think that my idea of the world lead to more happy people, so I'm going to try to do that. I also think that's what everything thinks when they vote. Do you not vote to try and make a world you believe is better than the one we have now? You can't KNOW that gay people shouldn't get married, you BELIEVE that it's better for gay people to not get married. I do the same thing, only share the opposite opinion.
Yes, people do bad things to feel good. However, like I've said a million times, if you're infringing on someone else's life you're giving up part of your own. And I don't think it's a horrible basis to feel happy and want others to be happy. Through observation I see more happy people when murder is illegal than when people go around killing whoever they feel like. Sure it feels good for the murderer, but not for the one getting hurt. In my opinion (nihilism aside, this is all me), I think that everyone has a right to live their own life. Once you infringe on someone else's life, you're losing part of your own.
I don't know if you're not understanding this, but you guys keep arguing against it. I feel like we're just running around in circles and one of us or both is missing something in what the other is saying.
Things have been accomplished through discrimination and slavery, but I don't think that leads to happy lives for those individuals.
You're absolutely right, I don't think that I can judge that something will ultimately make more or less people happy. However, it's a matter of opinion, not fact. Maybe legalizing gay marriage will make more people unhappy than happy, but I really don't think that's true. I don't have to be right. Everyone makes mistakes. However, I'm doing what I truly believe is better for most people. You can, and do argue against that. And you should! There should always be opposition to ideas! And I will look at your side, which I have, and I disagree with it.
Oh yeah, people are horrible at knowing what they want. I watched an interesting TedTalks that demonstrated that if people are given more options, they have less of an idea what they want. They will constantly change what they want. On the flip, if someone doesn't give them options they find that they are much happier with what they get. It's interesting stuff! I love psychology.
You're right, you have to look inside to see what you want. I also think that constantly challenging your beliefs (as I'm doing with my own, now) is another good way to know for certain that you've made the right decision. It's important to see all sides.
I see, the nothing being neither\nor got me. The triple negative equates to a positive statement, but I see now that's not how you intended it. That very much negates a great deal of what I said, so bear that in mind as I respond to what you're saying.
Yes, essential selfishness is not a terrible idea. Many Christians reject it, and many people hate it because they don't understand its implications. Though the more pragmatic groups can also accept it.
To be honest I try to vote for the party that I expect will be least destructive, though I suppose that amounts to the same thing
I tend to consider marriage as we see it to be a civil\cultural institution, not essentially the same as the union of man and woman to create a family and procreate, nor the oneness that Christians talk about when they refer to scripture. Its the act of male homosexuality itself that I view as wrong, and that because I believe it is a more pernicious act than your side would care to admit. Though to be fair I believe it is considerably less pernicious than the more outspoken Christian groups say it is.
Infringing on others is a somewhat tricky criteria for wrong doing. Being social creatures everything we do affects those around us, it is not easy to gauge at what point perosnal actions become a public harm, especially in the long term.
In a number of cases both ancient and modern Christians where happy under persecution. I suppose you could write that up as an anomaly though. To be sure they did work to end persecution in all cases.
Considering homosexuals are a minority, its actually likely legalization will make more people unhappy than happy. That doesn't really matter though. Mind, to me a thread titled 'Obama's call for gay rights makes history' is kind of funny, as it doesn't seem like a big deal to me considering I'm not American and gay rights are quite common in the western world.
Yeah, that Tedtalks you mention does reference quite an interesting phenomena. I would say that it shows that freedom does not actually directly contribute to happiness. Without an objective its actually detrimental to happiness. If a person with a specific objective and the knowledge of how to promote it where given the same circumstances they would be happier with the choices, because they would know what they want and there would only be one right choice to them. Most people are not like that though.
Good last paragraph.
Yes, essential selfishness is not a terrible idea. Many Christians reject it, and many people hate it because they don't understand its implications. Though the more pragmatic groups can also accept it.
To be honest I try to vote for the party that I expect will be least destructive, though I suppose that amounts to the same thing
I tend to consider marriage as we see it to be a civil\cultural institution, not essentially the same as the union of man and woman to create a family and procreate, nor the oneness that Christians talk about when they refer to scripture. Its the act of male homosexuality itself that I view as wrong, and that because I believe it is a more pernicious act than your side would care to admit. Though to be fair I believe it is considerably less pernicious than the more outspoken Christian groups say it is.
Infringing on others is a somewhat tricky criteria for wrong doing. Being social creatures everything we do affects those around us, it is not easy to gauge at what point perosnal actions become a public harm, especially in the long term.
In a number of cases both ancient and modern Christians where happy under persecution. I suppose you could write that up as an anomaly though. To be sure they did work to end persecution in all cases.
Considering homosexuals are a minority, its actually likely legalization will make more people unhappy than happy. That doesn't really matter though. Mind, to me a thread titled 'Obama's call for gay rights makes history' is kind of funny, as it doesn't seem like a big deal to me considering I'm not American and gay rights are quite common in the western world.
Yeah, that Tedtalks you mention does reference quite an interesting phenomena. I would say that it shows that freedom does not actually directly contribute to happiness. Without an objective its actually detrimental to happiness. If a person with a specific objective and the knowledge of how to promote it where given the same circumstances they would be happier with the choices, because they would know what they want and there would only be one right choice to them. Most people are not like that though.
Good last paragraph.
Batman007, I apologize in advance if you've already covered this (I only briefly skimmed the last few pages of this thread), so I hope I'm not asking you to continue feeling like like you're talking in circles.
I'm a bit confused by the paragraph listed above. What exactly do you mean that when you infringe on someone else's life, you are giving up a part of your own? I'm also a bit confused because you said that because murder is illegal, people can't go around killing people for fun but then you go on to say that people should be allowed to live their own life?
Just looking for clarification, I'm not trying to argue or anything.
B
Batman007
Guest
Yep, sorry you're right I messed up the grammar there, thanks for figuring that out
It really is difficult to see how much one thing effects others. I like to think that every opinion I hold would benefit humankind but I'm only human and I think it's impossible to know. That's why I love talking to you guys! That's why I love learning about new people and beliefs and cultures to better understand how the world works, and what would work to make it better, because the only way to get a better understanding is to learn more. I can't say what is best for the world if I only know America. Not even all of America, my city. My state. But then there are so many different people and cultures within even that...
I can't speak for ancient times. I look at the past to learn, but I can't say whether the persecuted Christians were happy or unhappy. Even if we look at text written about the time, it could have been written by someone who wanted future historians to think that people are happy, but they were actually miserable. Or maybe they were almost all happy. I guess for future people happiness won't really matter, but rather what we accomplish, because that's what's remembered. I'm making my own head hurt haha
I see your point about homosexuals being the minority. However, I don't think most straight people have a problem with gay marriage. I watched a video where someone interviewed Canadians after gay marriage became legalized. These were people who were highly opposed before the law was passed. When asked if their lives changed at all, they all answered that their lives didn't change. That they keep doing the same things, they keep living the same lives, and it made no difference - and if it did make a difference it was so minor that it didn't impact their quality of life. On the flip side, those gay couples who were in love, who couldn't visit each other in the hospital or get tax breaks, their lives became much better.
I agree that the title's a little ridiculous. I think the big thing is he's the first president (don't quote me on this) to openly support gay marriage. I think. I might be wrong.
It really is difficult to see how much one thing effects others. I like to think that every opinion I hold would benefit humankind but I'm only human and I think it's impossible to know. That's why I love talking to you guys! That's why I love learning about new people and beliefs and cultures to better understand how the world works, and what would work to make it better, because the only way to get a better understanding is to learn more. I can't say what is best for the world if I only know America. Not even all of America, my city. My state. But then there are so many different people and cultures within even that...
I can't speak for ancient times. I look at the past to learn, but I can't say whether the persecuted Christians were happy or unhappy. Even if we look at text written about the time, it could have been written by someone who wanted future historians to think that people are happy, but they were actually miserable. Or maybe they were almost all happy. I guess for future people happiness won't really matter, but rather what we accomplish, because that's what's remembered. I'm making my own head hurt haha
I see your point about homosexuals being the minority. However, I don't think most straight people have a problem with gay marriage. I watched a video where someone interviewed Canadians after gay marriage became legalized. These were people who were highly opposed before the law was passed. When asked if their lives changed at all, they all answered that their lives didn't change. That they keep doing the same things, they keep living the same lives, and it made no difference - and if it did make a difference it was so minor that it didn't impact their quality of life. On the flip side, those gay couples who were in love, who couldn't visit each other in the hospital or get tax breaks, their lives became much better.
I agree that the title's a little ridiculous. I think the big thing is he's the first president (don't quote me on this) to openly support gay marriage. I think. I might be wrong.
B
Batman007
Guest
Batman007, I apologize in advance if you've already covered this (I only briefly skimmed the last few pages of this thread), so I hope I'm not asking you to continue feeling like like you're talking in circles.
I'm a bit confused by the paragraph listed above. What exactly do you mean that when you infringe on someone else's life, you are giving up a part of your own? I'm also a bit confused because you said that because murder is illegal, people can't go around killing people for fun but then you go on to say that people should be allowed to live their own life?
Just looking for clarification, I'm not trying to argue or anything.
Good questions
I have answered them I think but I'll go for it again, because I understand when a thread's long you really don't want to have to read all of it hahaI live in the United States. Living in the United States gives me certain freedoms, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. In order for me to live in this society, I have to abide by it's rules. This isn't really a choice, because if I don't I'll get arrested, so it's not so much a matter of opinion as it is the law (which I happen to agree with). In order to live here, I give up the right to kill others, to steal from others, or there will be legal repercussions. So I think we can all agree that you can't really do anything you want, because you'll go to jail.
This is what I base most of my moral reasoning on. I live my life, and I enjoy living my life. It's mine and mine alone, and I can do with it as I wish. I like that I have the freedom to do what I want (within the laws of society), and I like not having people impose on that. But the thing is, I don't have the right to control someone else's right. That's what I believe. Before we were arguing that I can't have any objective moral compass to base this on, but I don't think I need one because it's all a matter of opinion. I don't think it's ok for me to kill someone because I wouldn't want someone to kill me. I can't be a murderer and kill people while expecting that others will still let me live my own life. I don't think any one's life is better than another. Murderer and victim, it's just two people. So if one takes the life of the other, they no longer have the right to live their own life. You can't infringe on someone's rights without expecting your own to be infringed on in return.
Does that make sense?
So in a nutshell, people are allowed to live their own life. Everyone is. But in return you have to agree not to impact someone else's life. Once you do you no longer are following the rules of "live your own life".
SEXUAL SABOTAGE
Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D.
"Dr. Reisman successfully spent much of her career laying the foundations for deconstructing both 'soft pornography' and 'Kinsey myths'. Her work, uncovering and documenting systemic perversion by well-funded efforts in academia, politics, business and media, sheds light on what spawned the 'sexual from birth' dogma and helped to launch the global pollution of classrooms and institutions, our print and broadcast media and, indeed, the internet."
""Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."
Charles E. Rice, Professor, Notre Dame Law School"
Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. - Institute for Media Education < click
extensive documentation that this is an agenda.
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph. You can't very well judge what is best locally if you don't know how else things are done and who else is out there.
The ancient texts concerning Christian persecution are not generally in dispute, and if you prefer something closer to home writings by Christians under Bolshevik or Chineese oppression are quite modern, and they attest to both difficulties and joys.
But as for the people of the future, they are our grandchildren, what we provide for them should be something that matters to them. That's part of the reason the increasingly cheap infrastructure North American cities are building disturbs me so. My cities old civic centre was built so it could realistically stand 500 years from now with maintenance, the new one won't. It's a very bad trend I've been seeing across North America.
I think that when it comes to visitation rights and finances far fewer people have a problem with gay rights. It's when the word marriage comes up that people get in a knot about it. I can certainly understand the problems with not having de facto visitation and power of attorney and such. Part of why I live in the province I do is because the laws on the books are phrased I can secure those things more easily if we find the right person to join our setup.
I think you're right that Obama is the first to make an open call. If Clinton did it would have been much more of an uproar in his time, and Bush wouldn't.
The ancient texts concerning Christian persecution are not generally in dispute, and if you prefer something closer to home writings by Christians under Bolshevik or Chineese oppression are quite modern, and they attest to both difficulties and joys.
But as for the people of the future, they are our grandchildren, what we provide for them should be something that matters to them. That's part of the reason the increasingly cheap infrastructure North American cities are building disturbs me so. My cities old civic centre was built so it could realistically stand 500 years from now with maintenance, the new one won't. It's a very bad trend I've been seeing across North America.
I think that when it comes to visitation rights and finances far fewer people have a problem with gay rights. It's when the word marriage comes up that people get in a knot about it. I can certainly understand the problems with not having de facto visitation and power of attorney and such. Part of why I live in the province I do is because the laws on the books are phrased I can secure those things more easily if we find the right person to join our setup.
I think you're right that Obama is the first to make an open call. If Clinton did it would have been much more of an uproar in his time, and Bush wouldn't.
B
Batman007
Guest
I believe you about the texts, I just haven't read them and know nothing about them besides what you told me.
Yeah, that's a huge problem, I agree. We don't really have structures older than a couple hundred years. Even things that would probably, in other countries, be sacred are torn down here to make way for a Walmart. It's really depressing. I was recently in Ireland and I have to say one of the coolest parts of the trip was seeing buildings and castles and businesses that had been around longer than America has been a country!
I guess it's just not something we, as a nation, value. It's unfortunate.
I get that. I'm not against civil unions, so long as all the legal parts of marriage are tied to it. Personally I think it should be up to the church to decide whether they want to marry a gay couple, but there should be an option in the courts for their to be a civil union. It's separation of church and state, and if marriage is a religious thing then it shouldn't be legal, also, without some kind of alternative that is non-religious.
Wow, that's well said. It never occurred to me to look at it quite like that.
There's actually a decent segment of the Christian population that wants the state out of marriage entirely. Essentially saying that everyone should just get a contract from the state that is somehting like a civil union to cover legal business like power of attourney and taxes, and leave marriage itself to various private religious institutions (or ideological institutions, as the case may be).
The idea is that if the governemnt is going to be secular, it shouldn't regulate sacred institutions. It does however need to track these unions for social purposes. I don't fully agree with that point of view, but on the whole it does seem to solve a lot of issues.
B
Batman007
Guest
I know people who support gay marriage who also think that's a good idea.
Yeah it definitely needs some tweaking, but I think that'd probably be a good compromise between the two sides. For some reason politicians and the media never seem to have even considered it, at least not very vocally. I wonder why that is.
So if marriage became purely religious and the government handled it own form of unions would you still be opposed to gay couples? Is it onlybecause the word attached to it is marriage?