Religious Freedom and the Freedom to Discriminate

It's not a strawman, but a representation of the general secular community.

Elaborate on your question. What do you mean by "recognize morality?" Be specific.

Nope.

How so? Your options were basically the same thing.

You don't know that these reasons do not require God for their existence, and you don't know that these truths would still be true if God did not recognize them.

I meant that certain things are immoral because God' divine wisdom necessitates that they be immoral.

My bad. Either way, if God had made those things moral, we certainly would regard them as moral. You are speaking from a position of knowing that these things are immoral, and therein lies the problem.

Then what is the issue, exactly?

No argument here, which is why I said reason and faith based morality.

No, they don't have to be required to have children. It just logically follows that an island of practicing homosexuals will eventually go extinct. That's not the case when it comes to an island of practicing heterosexuals.

No, because people aren't born cooks. There is no such thing as a person who was born with a career orientation towards cooking. It's simply an occupation, not a sexual orientation where one can choose not to engage in.

No reasonable person would take your analogies seriously. Society requires both males and females, so of course a society composed strictly of males is going to go extinct. In an island of practicing homosexuals, whether male or female, it will go extinct due to their actions (or lack thereof), and not because of their sex. The island of homosexuals have a choice, the island of males do not.

As to the island of "single" people, these people have the option to not go extinct. That isn't the case with practicing homosexuals, where they insist on not furthering their society.

Sure, and people decades ago thought the Earth will be overpopulated by 2000.

Huh? You are speaking of something that the parties have no control of.

That's not my argument.

That's all dandy, but it doesn't hide the fact that they are a sexual deviant group that want to engage in unnatural activities. We were meant to be attracted do the opposite sex. Penis. Vagina. Etc. A tiny percentage of humanity are not attracted to the opposite sex, and they have a problem. Liberals, who feel sorry for everyone, insist on ignoring the cold hard facts, lest they be characterized as "bigots".

I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of pedophiles who can live normal lives and all that. So what?

And the homosexual disorder has a negative impact on how humans were meant to mate and copulate.

Oh, I see, so it was a disorder because of "bigots", but it was removed because of science.

And why is that?

I really don't care if homosexuality exists among a tiny fraction of animals, for reasons which there is no consensus among scientists. Further, humans are not animals. We have the ability to rise above our base desires.

And stop comparing humans inventions to homosexual sex. It's nonsense.

But homosexuals have to go the extra length. Why? Because penises weren't meant to enter rectums.

No, the issue of sexual diseases forces us to focus on males. We can certainly provide rational reasons that oppose lesbian sex- reasons that aren't concerned with sexual diseases.

Sure there is, and it's based on science and psychology.

Of course it isn't for yours, as your society has become decadent and materialistic.

Again, I don't care if it occurs in nature. Anal sex is the most dangerous of sexual positions, which is why those who engage in it have to go to such lengths to protect themselves. And even their extra, extra precautions may prove futile in the end.

I don't think you know what authoritarianism means.

But surely pedophiles can take extra precautions like homosexuals can, correct?

No, I've shown how your reasoning is flawed, and how empathy is irrelevant.

I dealt with this above.

Empathy is purely based on emotions. That it is in response to factual conditions is superfluous information.

Says who?

You have so far failed to demonstrate this.

I'm not familiar with the background of this law. In any event, even if it does occur (which is extremely rare), it takes place in the deserted mountainous regions, where young people are not expected to go to school and whatnot. Getting married and tilling the land is pretty much all that they have to look forward to.

I'll also add that young individuals in the East differ from their Western counterparts. You can talk politics with with a 10 year old in Lebanon. The average American adult doesn't know where his own country is on the map.

But homosexuals can serve the higher good by not engaging in homosexual sex. By engaging in it, they achieve nothing except fulfilling their lustful desires.

And denying homosexuals to engage in homosexual sex can also serve the "higher good"- whether that be for the homosexual or society as a whole.

Of course societal context matters. Otherwise, you wouldn't regard sex with children as rape, a characterization which past cultures would disagree with.

 

Holy ****. Are you still going on about how adults should be allowed to have sex with children???

This is some sick, despicable and illegal stuff you are carrying on about.

 

Freedom should not be used to hurt people's feelings. Freedom should only be used to do the things the government says you can do freely.

 

Where did I claim adults should have sex with children? Show us the evidence or retract your claim.

 

I'll leave it to the readers to see your own words and decide for themselves:

Originally Posted by Goomba
If you want equality for homosexuals (or all sexual orientations), logic dictates that pedophiles should be allowed the same equality."


Originally Posted by Goomba ...And yet you want to discriminate against those who want to have sex with children.

"Ah, but given homosexual sex is unnatural, homosexuals have to go to further lengths to protect themselves (and their precautions may often prove futile in the end). More so, one can posit that adults can easily take precautions when having sex with young individuals. "

"Can you not give me a straightforward answer? We are not talking about adults forcing themselves on other adults, but adults "forcing" themselves on children. Indeed, adults "force" a myriad of things on children, so why all the hullabaloo when it comes to sexual matters?"

"Nevertheless, you readily assume it harms children regardless the context of the society in which it may take place. And you have so far not proved that this is the case."

 

Yawn, I already explained to another poster how I'm interested in showing the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of those who support homosexual sex. Now f off.

 

This stuff about children is extremely disgusting and vile . This is one of the sickest trolls I've yet to come across

 

Normal people do not ask questions like

what's all the hullabaloo about raping children or any of your other sick remarks to put forth reasons for being anti-gay.

Your comments are some of the lowest of the low I have read here. And that's saying a lot.

 

Those comments and questions are that of a psychopath and child sexual predator. I know. I made a career out of putting people like that away.

 

`
I've seen you in other threads here spouting the same thing. You have no intention to discuss this, you do this for one reason only: Trolling to get a rise out of someone.

 

If you have an argument, present it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time. Why are Americans so anti-intellectual?

 

All of these contradictions are getting overwhelming.

You are charging at windmills, equating secularism with anarchy.

I’m not sure where the confusion is. I’m talking about morality in the same way that you likely believe in morality for yourself: you recognize moral truths that do not depend on your subjective tastes. When you see a bird outside your window, you recognize that there is a bird outside your window. Your personal tastes and opinions don’t matter. The bird is there whether you like it or not.

Then why are you offering the exact type of defense that I’ve heard from Christians dozens of times before?

If you think the options are the same, then you don’t understand the options.

#1 is subjective – God’s “rape is evil” is purely an expression of his personal tastes, just as “mayonnaise is gross” is an expression of my personal tastes.
#2 is objective – God’s “rape is evil” is his recognition, in his wisdom, of certain facts that are external to his mind, just “mayonnaise is made of eggs and oil” is my recognition of certain facts external to my mind.

The only reason why they would require God’s existence would be if they were the product of his will. That would make them subjective. If God bases his judgment on anything other than his own subjective tastes – such as the consequences of rape – then no God is required. He is basing it on something external to him. The source of morality is external to him.

This is one of your most blatant contradictions. You claim that theism is necessary as a basis for morality, but then you try to offer a secular argument against homosexuality later on. Which is it? If there is no secular basis for morality, your argument against homosexuality fails. If there is a secular basis for morality, then your interpretation of Euthyphro’s dilemma fails.

This statement makes no sense. Wisdom is a recognition of objective facts. If God’s wisdom was that rape is evil, he would be recognizing objective facts that led him to the conclusion that God is evil. My wisdom says I shouldn't run down icy stairs. My wisdom does not cause running down icy stairs to be a bad idea. If it did, it wouldn't make any sense to even call it wisdom anymore than it would be wisdom for me to say that I don't like mayonnaise.

Saying that “Gods divine wisdom necessitates that they by immoral” is like saying “My vision dictates that things to see exist.”

I need to stop you right there and point out: “if God had made these things moral”. That’s the first option of the dilemma, the subjective one. Your version of morality is purely arbitrary. Rape is evil because God made it evil, and he could have just as easily made it good. If there were a reason that God went with “rape is evil” instead of “rape is good”, then God isn’t the author of morality. Reason is.

I don’t see morality as a problem. Why do you? You are speaking from a position of not knowing whether or not rape or pedophilia is immoral. That’s a hell of a lot of a bigger problem.

Morality.

If it were reason-based, then there would be other options besides “Yuh-huh, nuh-uh.”

An island of people who don’t have children will go just as extinct. What’s with the special pleading?

An island of practicing celibates will go just as extinct, regardless of their sexuality.

Your objection is nonsensical. The island scenario doesn’t depend on people being born one way or another. It depend on actions.
An island of people who are only cooks will go just as extinct as an island of only homosexuals.

They are called counterexamples. You can find them in any book on logic and argumentation. It’s when you demonstrate the flaws of an argument by applying it to other scenarios. Your argument fails the test. You want it to only apply to homosexuals/heterosexuals and not to any other scenario.

There is no rational argument against homosexuality here. And besides, I thought you said that secularists are immoral. Why argue for a secular argument for morality? Which is it? Does morality require theism or not?

The same is true of an island of celibates.

Then they can make the choice to procreate. So your argument is invalid.

There is no choice in an island of single people that isn’t an option for an island of gay people. Both can make the choice to have kids. Thousands of gay couples have children from previous relationships. You have invalidated your argument

You are presenting a false dilemma where either everyone has a baby or no one does.

No economist thinks that unchecked population growth is infinitely sustainable. Luckily, humans are better at self-regulating their population than alarmists predicted. This wouldn’t be the case if absolutely everyone accepted your island argument and thought it was a moral obligation to have children under the ridiculous notion of “all of us or none of us”.

This is another enormous contradiction in your argument. When you were trying to exclude single people from the island experiment, you said that they have a choice and homosexuals don’t. Now you are excluding this example people these people don’t have a choice. Which is it?

Either homosexuals have a choice or they don’t. Pick one. You have excused other groups from this thought experiment based on both options, so either option that you choose invalidates your argument.

If they have a choice, they are in the same boat as an island of only single people.
If they don’t have a choice, they are in the same boat as an island of only males.

Which is it?

It rests on the same logic.

Nature disagrees with you. Homosexual sex, anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, etc. all exist in nature.

There are no cold hard facts that lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. Only faith-based bigotry.

Even if that were true, and I think that view is positively sociopathic, then it would just mean that pedophilia was not a psychological disorder. That wouldn’t make it right.

That’s nonsense. Nature is full of examples of other ways to mate and copulate, the only argument that this is what humans “were meant” to do come from faith-based arguments. You are twisting the definition of a disorder.

Exactly. Glad I was clear.

There is direct observation. If you don’t care about this, then you don’t care whether or not homosexuality is natural.

And the ability to rise over superstition. The example of animals was only to show that it is natural.

If your argument is “it isn’t natural”, then anything else that isn’t natural should be fair game.

As I said, these precautions are largely the same. What pensis were “meant” to do is a faith-based argument. It is not based on reason.

So diseases are important when we are talking about male homosexuals, but not female homosexuals? Looks like we have another contradiction.

Then, by all means, feel free to produce such rational reasons. I’m still waiting.

Then point to the science.

I can’t think of a single religious society that can claim any moral superiority in this area.

Then you don’t care if it is natural, so stop pretending.

Safe anal sex is easy. A lubricated condom is just as effective in anal sex as it is in vaginal sex.

All safety precautions may prove futile in the end. Anal sex is far safer than, say, driving a car to work. Are we going to condemn those unnatural horseless carriages now?!?

Dictating people’s sexual lives with consenting partners is authoritarian nonsense.

No, they can’t. Pedophilia is immeasurably more dangerous, both physically and psychologically, than adult homosexual sex. No rational person could argue otherwise.

Again, saying that empathy is irrelevant is the mindset of a sociopath.

Empathy can’t exist without factual conditions. Empathy, necessarily, involves an understanding of what other people are going through. You can’t still have empathy if you take away that understanding.

Says grammar and punctuation.

So far you have failed to understand what reason and empathy are.

That doesn’t answer my question. I asked if it was immoral or not.

So the age of consent should be based on political and geographical knowledge?

What higher good is achieved by one homosexual not having sex with another? I’m still waiting to hear this.

Let’s say that’s true. So what? Who are they hurting?

Not in any rational sense of the term.

Past cultures didn’t understand that the earth revolved around the sun. That doesn’t make solar revolution a subject of “societal context.”

Now, I’ve answered tons of questions for you. I'd like you to grant me one big one: Why is it morally good to obey God?.

 

I am going to take the short cut here and focus on just two points of your extended rhetoric.
Your declarations listed above are also admissions of your trust that God does exist and that God does have those attributes. If you argue that they are not admissions coming from you, then you are fabricating an argument based on conjecture and in that event, your argument is meaningless as it would be not even believable to you.

 

This is all directed at the sexual promiscuity that Feminists and Gays who want to encourage, because that social behavior ends with millions of kids born fatherless to single mothers, kids who suffer tremendous Child Abuse.

 

Yes, yes, yes...

The tremendous Child Abuse to fatherless kids MUST stop by teaching young people to marry if they intend to be sexual:


CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapist motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source: Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26).
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals A Report on the State of High Schools).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).

These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school
20 times more likely to end up in prison

Children from "fatherless families of single mother" homes are*:

15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
4.6 times more likely to commit suicide
6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers
24.3 times more likely to run away
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions
10.8 times more likely to commit rape
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage
73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes

Daughters who live in mother only homes are 92% more likely to divorce**

 

Then you've missed most of the discussion and I'm afraid your pulling that out of context. I'll happily discuss it if you read the rest of it.

Here's the original context:

The part you were quoting was a more thorough explanation of the two options, since Goomba thought they were the same thing.

 

At the highlighted text: Are you comfortable with providing PROOF of what "God is actually" doing?
All of your stated logical entrapment are nothing more than human reasoning. Are you also declaring that God is obligated to abide by the reasoning of man? If you are, then show proof of claim.

 

If that's the track you are taking, then let's move it to another thread. We are getting well outside the topic. It made sense in my discussion with Goomba, since it was related to the overall discussion, but now we are splitting off and only talking about the Euthrypro Dilemma.

And if this is only meant to devolve into another discussion of Pyrrhonic skepticism, I really have no desire for it.

 

Then why did you bring up the discussion about the Euthrypro Dilemma if you did not want to discuss it? So you have a disdain toward Pyrrhonism?

Actually what was invoked was my curiosity that spawned the question: "All of your stated logical entrapment are nothing more than human reasoning. Are you also declaring that God is obligated to abide by the reasoning of man?"

 

Where did I say that I did not want to discuss it? I said we should take it to another thread if it is the only thing you want to discuss.

Yes. It does not allow for fruitful discussion and its supposed adherents behave as if it isn't true, despite their purported liking for the philosophy.

I don't know what you mean by "the reasoning of man". To me, that is no different form saying "man's math". Anyone who sees logic as entrapment should reevaluate their system of thought.

 

You were suggesting that my posting might be a pyrrohonic skeptical maneuver. and in that you said:
"And if this is only meant to devolve into another discussion of Pyrrhonic skepticism, I really have no desire for it." When in Rome, do as the Romans do. The maneuvers of many of the non-theists on this forum would fall squarely in the description of Pyrrohonic skepticism when talking about God. So, tit for tat. So start another thread... after all you brought up the subjects.

Personally, IMHO, all philosophies have content that I find so interesting that they are all in the 'like' category to me. After all, if you don't like a subject, you will also have a propensity toward rejecting the content.

'the reasoning of man' would be any and all 'reasoning' that is instilled in each member of the human society. Yes! From a secular point of view, that would also include the reasoning used by Theists as well.

As for your closing comment: Hey... isn't it nice to be able to express an OPINION?

 

Yes. The key word here being if.

I haven't heard any nontheist bring up Pyrrhonic skepticism in talking about God. I certainly haven't done so myself. Treat others as you want to be treated. Learn to treat people as individuals.

I brought it up in the context of a discussion with Goomba. If you want to have a separate conversation about it, feel free to start a thread.

That doesn't change anything I said. Pyrrhonnism excludes fruitful discussion and Pyrrhonists act as if their philosophy isn't true. It is nothing more than a philosophical toy that grows old soon after it is taken out of the chest.

And? I'm not entirely sure that a "being beyond reason" is a phrase that actually signifies any intelligible concept in the first place. We apply the familiar term "God" to the concept, but we might as well use a more honest term that reflects the fact that we are talking about something unintelligible. "Flagennargn" would work better, in that case.

I have no problem with people expressing an opinion.

 

Does "marriage equality" include the kids?
Aren't the welfare of children the reason for marriage in the first place?

Does anyone believe that tax benefits, ss insurance, dependency tax benefits, etc are due adults who are not likely to have children, or is it because they are going to be sexual and children will be coming?

 

Your question is like the one about, "Why do you beat your wife?"

Evil is something that hurts an innocent person.
Rape does that.

 

When we say no racial discrimination---we mean no racial discrimination. Black, oriental, white, Indian etc.
When you say no sexual orientation discrimination--you mean heterosexuality, homosexuality, zoophilia, pediaphilia, foot fetishes, masochism, polygamy etc.

This " consent" argument you bring up has nothing to do with the natural sexual attraction someone has and their "right" to be normal and equal.