Evidence for God from Science

What I'm trying to say is that sexual preferences regardless of origin are not given validity in society based on them being of free will, genetic disposition or nurture. If we start using these types of arguments then we approach a stage of everything being permissible utilising similar approaches.

We do judge others and, Widge, as jlay has mentioned you yourself appear to be here making judgements upon others. The argument here does not appear to be whether or not behaviours are permissible if they can be shown be of mainly genetic origin. The argument seems more focused on the validity of the homosexual lifestyle in todays society. Again I would point towards the sex life of consenting adults, which does include things like heterosexuality, homosexuality and polygamy but draws a line at children and animals. The line of reasoning used determines the how slippery the slope is, it is possible to entertain homosexual relationships without declaring the entire scope of human sexual activity as a ok - just as one can entertain sex before marriage without endorsing sex with children.

Proinsias wrote:What I'm trying to say is that sexual preferences regardless of origin are not given validity in society based on them being of free will, genetic disposition or nurture. If we start using these types of arguments then we approach a stage of everything being permissible utilising similar approaches.

We do judge others and, Widge, as jlay has mentioned you yourself appear to be here making judgements upon others. The argument here does not appear to be whether or not behaviours are permissible if they can be shown be of mainly genetic origin. The argument seems more focused on the validity of the homosexual lifestyle in todays society. Again I would point towards the sex life of consenting adults, which does include things like heterosexuality, homosexuality and polygamy but draws a line at children and animals. The line of reasoning used determines the how slippery the slope is, it is possible to entertain homosexual relationships without declaring the entire scope of human sexual activity as a ok - just as one can entertain sex before marriage without endorsing sex with children.

I think drawing any lines outside of religion is ridiculous, but that would go back to objective morality and what the Bible says on the subject...
Isn't that what all discussions about ethics really lead to?

Is drawing lines outside of religion not what the legal system is largely based upon.

Proinsias wrote:Is drawing lines outside of religion not what the legal system is largely based upon.

I thought we were discussing morality, but if you're talking about things like gay rights, etc I think it's quite meaningless to talk about ethics, since many things that are immoral are not illegal. In fact you could even say if all sin would be illegal people couldn't really freely choose to avoid it.
It's quite interesting to see people struggle with their atheism and yet moralistic views.

I'm trying to do a bit of both, gay rights and ethics/morality.

I don't think it's meaningless to talk ethics in combination with morality and rights. They are often interlinked and influence each other. To say that it's meaningless as many things considered immoral are not illegal seems a bit of a leap.

Glad to be of interest to you. I wouldn't say I'm struggling, I'm quite comfortable in my views on homosexuality, and a general patchwork morality that may not exactly match up with the opinions of a postulated objective moral being. As with my taste in most things I'm sure I still have much to learn in regards to morality, rights and ethics.

I don't think anybody disagrees that homosexuals deserve rights.

Marriage how ever is not a "right". They just use "gay rights" as a cover so it appears they are a civil movement like MLK.

They have always had the right to vote, free speech, not segregated ect....

I was under the impression that marriage was a right, as well as a rite!
First hit on google throws up this: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gender ... -Right.htm
which pretty much confirms what I thought - marriage being a civil right and thus calls to amend the definition of marriage would be an issue of rights, no?
It's also regarded as a right by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is closer to home for me.

Marriage is a right. It all depends on how marriage is being defined. I would content that marriage, by it's nature and definition, is a civil or religious union between a man and woman.
Gay people certainly have that right.

What's wrong with civil unions. Isn't that marriage in a sense? All the same benefits ect...

They have a right to be together and enjoy their lives, not to get married....

Marriage is between a man and women, so therefore gays can never be truly married because they do not meet the biblical definition. God gave the privilege of marriage to women and men.

Marriage is a right. It all depends on how marriage is being defined. I would content that marriage, by it's nature and definition, is a civil or religious union between a man and woman.
Gay people certainly have that right.

If we change the definition of it then its nature could become a civil or religious union between two adults. Here we have civil partnerships for homosexual couples and marriage for heterosexual couples, from a legal point of view they are identical. From living in a society where civil partnerships function in the same manner as marriage it seems sensible to me to allow for people of either sex to have either one - chocolate or vanilla as Jac would say.

Who's in charge of the definition of marriage?

Murray wrote:What's wrong with civil unions. Isn't that marriage in a sense?

I don't think there is anything wrong with civil unions. I do think it is marriage in a sense, so I don't have much trouble calling it marriage.

They sure do not think it is marriage.....

They have all the same rights as married couples but they don't care...

From what I gather civil partnerships are/were a pretty big deal, people do care. It was a big day for for two friends who had been together for over 10 yrs to be able to obtain a formal recognition, still what they wanted was to get married to each other. Unlike married couples they are not allowed to declare themselves married, which is the issue. It may be your opinion that same sex couples should be content with civil partnerships but myself and many others think otherwise. If they have the same rights, then why not call it marriage.
The Scottish Government are currently running a consultation forum on it, just filled out my form. In this case it looks like democracy may have a say, it'll be interesting to see the results. One of the questions was if religious groups should be forced to carry out same sex marriages, I voted no but I do think that if same sex marriages become legal religious groups which refuse to participate will end up, sooner or later, in a rather awkward situation.
Reading over the Scottish Govenment's post things look be leaning heavily in the direction of same sex marriage here but there's still a lot of talk to be had with religious leaders.
Even the Christians in Scotland seem pretty divided on these issues. The Church of Scotland has openly gay ministers and will bless civil partnerships whereas the Catholic presence is much more conservative. A quick google shows opinion may be closer to 50/50 where you are. If enough people want to change the definition of a word, who's to stop them?

Proinsias wrote: I do think that if same sex marriages become legal religious groups which refuse to participate will end up, sooner or later, in a rather awkward situation.

I doubt it. There are churches calling themselves Christian which marry religious homosexuals in my jurisdiction, and all is well. I doubt that mosques, synagogues and Roman Catholic churches in Glasgow will ever marry homosexuals. These groups will brave any awkward situation that may place them in the eyes of society at large.

FL

You may have a point there.