Evidence for God from Science

Just because people can subjectively evaluate what is harmful doesn't mean there isn't objective facts to be said.

By what do you determine how a fact is objective? What standard to you use to measure a fact, or a moral's objectivity?

RickD wrote:

Just because people can subjectively evaluate what is harmful doesn't mean there isn't objective facts to be said.

By what do you determine how a fact is objective? What standard to you use to measure a fact, or a moral's objectivity?

Many different ideas here. I'm not sure of the relevance though. What do you mean to say, that all human knowledge is subjective and therefore impossible or something?

RickD wrote:Beany,
I think FL gets his point across quite eloquently.

Beanybag wrote:Meanwhile, I can assure you that he does not have a point at all.

Oh, I do have a point and I'm sure most people reading understand it. You're no dummy, so why is it that you don't see my point, Beany?

FL

Let's clarify something. What is discrimination? According to dictionary.com, to discriminate means to:

1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discriminate

So, what does this mean? It means, for instance, if women aren't allowed to vote and men are, that's discrimination because one group is allowed to do something (vote) and another isn't. In other words, different rules apply to different people.

Now, what about same-sex marriages? Denying them is not discrimination because the same rules apply to everyone. Just as a homosexual man, or any other male adult for that matter, isn't allowed to marry another man (in countries where it's forbidden), neither am I. And likewise, just as a homosexual man is allowed to marry a woman, everyone else is. Therefore, everyone is subject to the same rules and there is no discrimination. So, I'm afraid that objections about "unequal rights" don't stand.

Beanybag wrote:However, I must say, while I am one to remain respectful when I'm able, allegory towards legalization of beastislity, necrophilia, incest, etc. as valid marriages is quite stupid. You all should be better than such ignorant remarks.

Why is it ignorant? Rick, Dan and FL are right - if something can be legalized just because it involves consent, then there are no barriers to legalizing all the mentioned. In fact, I'd be surprised if groups advocating such acts don't appear. Incest can be defended on the basis of consent. Necrophilia... dead people can't say no, can they? Bestiality... well, I guess someone could say that if an animal doesn't resist the act, it gives consent.

And of course, "marriage" that involves multiple people would then be an option as well.

So I hope you see that the criteria based solely on consent can't determine right and wrong. When we let subjectivity in, we can only get chaos.

Lets be clear and honest that the main difference between homosexuality and things like bestiality, incest, necrophilia and any other deviant sexual act/relationship (by deviant I mean outside the norm/majority) is that homosexuality has gained mainstream acceptance.
We've gone over this on another thread and consent can't be a deciding factor in regards to deciding what is sexual acceptable.
As for the genetic issues of incest, that is ONLY an issue if procreation is a deciding factor.

We have to be honest that when we are saying that one sexual act is acceptable and another is not, we are being subjective in our view of them based on our societies view of them as acceptable or not.

Beanybag wrote:

RickD wrote:

Just because people can subjectively evaluate what is harmful doesn't mean there isn't objective facts to be said.

By what do you determine how a fact is objective? What standard to you use to measure a fact, or a moral's objectivity?

Many different ideas here. I'm not sure of the relevance though. What do you mean to say, that all human knowledge is subjective and therefore impossible or something?

My point is simple. Either morality is subjective, and ultimately anything goes, or morality is objective, and certain things are wrong, because by definition of objective morality, they are wrong, even if the majority says they are right. Once we've changed the definition of marriage to mean what the majority says it means, or what govt. Says it means, then we have to allow the definition of marriage to evolve into other things like polygamy, as well. Because the argument(discrimination) we used to change the definition to include same sex marriage, would have to be used to include polygamy, and, why not incest between consenting adults.

So, again, that's what subjective morality leads to in this instance. We are claiming marriage has always been defined as between one man and one woman, as God's standard. And while you can certainly argue for what you think is objectively moral, you have NO BASIS to argue anything is objectively wrong, or right.

The argument for homosexual marriages tends to go the direction of: "we are more enlightened now and we know there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and if to loving adults want to get married and raise children, then they should be able to because its been shown that kids will be just fine".
Here is the thing though, that is the theory BUT are we seeing that in practice? and I mean NOT the "in practice" that we want to see or special interest groups want us to see, but are WE seeing that?
My answer is that I just don't know...
How do two fathers with a female girl deal with all those female issues?
I can give a personal example since I know a lesbian couple that have two kids ( boy and a girl) and every so often they do ask me ( or other males in their lives) for advice on "boy stuff" and the boy isn't even a teenager yet.
They just don't have any point of reference to deal with some of those issues.
I know only one kid that had two gay fathers growing up, he is in his mid 20's now and I meet him when he came in to learn martial arts.
Eventually we got to know each other well enough ( student/teacher relationship) that he confided in me ( as did one of his dads after) that growing up with gay parents was VERY hard on him, not only in high school of course ( we all know how mean kids are) but the fact that he was NOT gay made things really awkward for him with his dads - discussing girls was awkward as one can imagine and for sometime he felt ( much like a homosexual child growing up in a heterosexual family) he had to "be gay", even though he wasn't.
I don't think that we can just say that kids growing up in a homosexual family wil be just fine because they are loved and ignore the very real issues that can present themsevles.

Let's try to bring the discussion to a focal point. While I agree with most that once the gate is opened for same sex marriage that it ought to also be opened for all other groups, I also do agree that a positive adult consent is required. This of course leaves out bestiality and necrophilia but keeps incest in. Bean, whatever argument you put forth against incest seems hollow and contrived. When 2 adults make and consensual decision, who are you or I or even the court system to tell them otherwise? You can't have it both ways, either adult consent is enough or the government must decide on our behalf.

Here's the kicker, I am ALL FOR IT, I really am. I advocate the separation of church and state completely and irrevocably. Let us not be hypocrites and pretend that we support democracy and abhor discrimination while practicing it cloaked by the very constitution that was written precisely to guard against such practices. It is hypocracy at its highest form. Marriage is a religious institution and ought to remain as such. Government is concerned with individual and group rights and ought to remain as such. The entire tax law must be re-written with that in mind and let the chips fall where they may. I held a similar view when it came to shore up insurance and auto companies with tax money. yet again we pretend to be a capitalist economy and at the first sign of trouble we run to save companies that have no business in being in business in the first place. Be consistent and let the chips fall where they may.

The problem with being consistent is that NOT EVERYONE agrees with being consistent with everything.
We say morals are subjective but what we mean is that the morals I disagree with are subjective ( and don't apply to me) BUT the morals I agree with are universal and objective and even absolute.
Other cultures have no issue with sex with minors and even our western culture had no issues with it for the longest time, why the change?
Society ( which survived just fine with that stuff happening) decided that it was not correct ( much like arranged/forced marriages became to be viewed as incorrect) and one should ask WHY that was since societies were doing great with those very things going on.

PaulSacramento wrote:The problem with being consistent is that NOT EVERYONE agrees with being consistent with everything.
We say morals are subjective but what we mean is that the morals I disagree with are subjective ( and don't apply to me) BUT the morals I agree with are universal and objective and even absolute.
Other cultures have no issue with sex with minors and even our western culture had no issues with it for the longest time, why the change?
Society ( which survived just fine with that stuff happening) decided that it was not correct ( much like arranged/forced marriages became to be viewed as incorrect) and one should ask WHY that was since societies were doing great with those very things going on.

All the more reason why separate governments ought to dictate legal matters based on majority opinion and leave objective morality where it came from.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The problem with being consistent is that NOT EVERYONE agrees with being consistent with everything.
We say morals are subjective but what we mean is that the morals I disagree with are subjective ( and don't apply to me) BUT the morals I agree with are universal and objective and even absolute.
Other cultures have no issue with sex with minors and even our western culture had no issues with it for the longest time, why the change?
Society ( which survived just fine with that stuff happening) decided that it was not correct ( much like arranged/forced marriages became to be viewed as incorrect) and one should ask WHY that was since societies were doing great with those very things going on.

All the more reason why separate governments ought to dictate legal matters based on majority opinion and leave objective morality where it came from.

While I agree, that is the "dictatorship" of the majority, isn't it?
Of course, as we know, governments do NOT always go with the majority vote but many times pass legislation based not on electoral majority vote but on senatorial or congressional or parliamentary majority vote.
It's hard to say if homosexual marriage was put to a vote of the people VS vote of elected officials, if it would pass.

Let us not be hypocrites and pretend that we support democracy and abhor discrimination while practicing it cloaked by the very constitution that was written precisely to guard against such practices. It is hypocracy at its highest form. Marriage is a religious institution and ought to remain as such.

Byblos, I don't think discrimination is necessarily a bad thing. There are plenty of instances where discrimination is good. With that said, According to the way marriage has been defined, there's no discrimination towards homosexuals. A homosexual man is free to marry a woman, because that's what marriage has always been.(between a man and woman) Now, some are looking to change the definition of marriage. If state govts. decide to make a law regarding legal rights to homosexual couples, polygamists, incestual unions, then let that be up to each state. But calling it a marriage? I don't agree.

RickD wrote:

Let us not be hypocrites and pretend that we support democracy and abhor discrimination while practicing it cloaked by the very constitution that was written precisely to guard against such practices. It is hypocracy at its highest form. Marriage is a religious institution and ought to remain as such.

Byblos, I don't think discrimination is necessarily a bad thing. There are plenty of instances where discrimination is good. With that said, According to the way marriage has been defined, there's no discrimination towards homosexuals. A homosexual man is free to marry a woman, because that's what marriage has always been.(between a man and woman) Now, some are looking to change the definition of marriage. If state govts. decide to make a law regarding legal rights to homosexual couples, polygamists, incestual unions, then let that be up to each state. But calling it a marriage? I don't agree.

I totally agree with you that it ought not be called marriage, that's exactly the issue at hand. This definition of 'marriage' that the government adopted is by its very nature a religious one. That needs to change. Marriage is no longer recognized by the federal government, it is meaningless. There are only contractual agreements between 2 or more parties for taxation, inheritance, medical, etc, etc, purposes, A man and a woman who are 'married' in a religious setting are not seen any differently in the eyes of the government as any other unrelated individuals. Similarly, 2 or more persons who have a contractual agreement as defined by the government are not considered 'married' in the eyes if religious institutions. A complete severance between church and state.

Reactionary wrote:So I hope you see that the criteria based solely on consent can't determine right and wrong.

When people base their criteria on "consent" it is usually a shorthand for "the ability to give informed consent." In your examples you're mainly using it as a shorthand for "the inability to withold consent," which is fundamentally a different thing.

Laws prohibiting necrophilia probably have a similar grounding as those that make organ donation opt-in only in many countries. We have a vitalic tendency to extend much of the same respect to a person's cadaver that we did to the person when they were alive, so even though a corpse can neither give nor withold consent we treat them roughly as though they were a living person - a lack of consent being the default position in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. We don't have the same tendency as regards animals, so whilst we have laws prohibiting bestiality, there's nothing stopping me from having a fantastic night in with a cow's heart and a tub of crisco.

Sticking with bestiality, why shouldn't we allow it in cases where strict standards of informed consent and welfare can be demonstrated? If, for argument's sake, we were able to tell that a woman's pet caiman was very much in mutual love with her, and neither party was unduly likely to come to injury through their sexual congress, then what business does anyone have preventing them from said congress in the privacy of their own bayou, eh?

touchingcloth wrote:

Reactionary wrote:So I hope you see that the criteria based solely on consent can't determine right and wrong.

When people base their criteria on "consent" it is usually a shorthand for "the ability to give informed consent." In your examples you're mainly using it as a shorthand for "the inability to withold consent," which is fundamentally a different thing.

Laws prohibiting necrophilia probably have a similar grounding as those that make organ donation opt-in only in many countries. We have a vitalic tendency to extend much of the same respect to a person's cadaver that we did to the person when they were alive, so even though a corpse can neither give nor withold consent we treat them roughly as though they were a living person - a lack of consent being the default position in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. We don't have the same tendency as regards animals, so whilst we have laws prohibiting bestiality, there's nothing stopping me from having a fantastic night in with a cow's heart and a tub of crisco.

Sticking with bestiality, why shouldn't we allow it in cases where strict standards of informed consent and welfare can be demonstrated? If, for argument's sake, we were able to tell that a woman's pet caiman was very much in mutual love with her, and neither party was unduly likely to come to injury through their sexual congress, then what business does anyone have preventing them from said congress in the privacy of their own bayou, eh?

If positive consent can be established I say go for it.

Post edit: But be careful what you wish for. In that case animals will be entitled to just as much equal rights as you and I do. Fear where you tread my friend, lest you be committing unintentional animalslaughter.