Religious Freedom and the Freedom to Discriminate

Then, by all means, feel free to provide a rational, moral, non faith-based argument. I've asked for one for years and have yet to see any honest attempt.

Read it again, then.

Because it violates reason and empathy.

Because any rational person can see that a concern for their own well being and a disregard for the well being of others is arbitrary. Pedophilia is physically dangerous, even when precautions are taken, unlike homosexuality, and pedophilia disregards the consent of one party involved. Those things are irrational.

Likewise, it is irrational to restrict the actions of another person without rational justification. There is rational justification for restricting the actions of a pedophile. There are no such justifications for restricting homosexual relationships between consenting adults.

Because we are talking about a marriage contract.

 

Seriously dude?

What in the hell is wrong with you?

 

The religion does not create the sociopath. The sociopath creates the religion.

More accurately the sociopath distorts the religion for their nefarious purposes. These are the same sociopaths that argued that slavery and prohibitions against inter-racial marriage were supported by Christian religious beliefs. They're the one's that believe their nefarious interpretations of the Bible are the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States and not the US Constitution. These are the same religious sociopaths that the founders of America recognized would impose tyranny if we based our nation on theocratic law which is why America was not founded upon Christianity but instead was created as a secular nation.

These "Christian" sociopaths, for all intent and purpose, are identical to the members of the Islamic State that corrupts the interpretation of the Quran for their nefarious purposes.

 

There must ALWAYS be consent in sexual matters, without ANY exception. Any societal norm that says otherwise is part of a depraved, barbaric culture.

 

Morality and religion are intertwined, so you already know why it is wrong according to morality.

As to rationality, do you agree that something that is not beneficial in any way to mankind; indeed, something that is detrimental to the to very existence of human society is wrong?

Empathy is irrelevant.

No, there certainly are negative physical and health concerns when it comes to homosexual sex. That makes sense, given it's unnatural to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what some people say in response to those advocating homosexual sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Give me a good reason. One can similarity say that any society that sees no problem in homosexual sex is depraved and barbaric.

 

It's both!! Take your bovine excrement somewhere else

 

Learn to argue in a civil manner or gtf().

 

Straight pedophiles have been able to marry for centuries. Don't understand your logic on this one, other than a strange attempt at ... what?

 

You forfeited any claim to civility- or to sanity for that matter- when you posted a stupid one liner about pedophilia You are now ignored. I don't have time for useless pissing matches.

 

Morality can easily exist without religion, and vice versa. The only moral theory that requires god is the ridiculous divine command theory, which states that all morality is based on nothing more than the arbitrary whims and subjective tastes of a god. Under diving command theory, any crime against humanity can be, and has been, excused. As I said there was no rational, moral argument against homosexuality, only religious, faith-based ones.

"Not beneficial" and "detrimental" are two different things. I would not agree that something "not beneficial" to mankind is immoral. Hot wings and blue cheese dip do not provide any grand benefit to mankind, but they aren't immoral. Something detrimental to the very existence of mankind ("human society" as you are using already seems like a loaded term), sure.

No rational moral system can exist without a knowledge of how actions impact other people. Reason requires empathy.

There are no "negative physical and health concerns" inherent to homosexual sex that are not equally problematic in heterosexual sex. Educated lovers can easily take precautions that negate these concerns.

Because empathy and reason condemn nonconsensual sex. You would, by definition, want someone to force themselves on you against your will, and allowing nonconsensual sex would not provide for any greater good.

Only if they rely on superstition instead of reason.

 

Thank goodness.

 

I just came upon this interesting article that I though certain people who are heavy into religion can relate to. You know who you are. The ones who are whining about their rights being stripped away by the simple fact of granting rights to gay people. The ones who moan about the collapse of the traditional family not to mention society as a whole. Those who fear, or claim to fear that the churches will be closed and the Christians thrown in jail. Those who can’t accept the fact that the United States is not a theocracy and that the rule of law prevails.

Now before I go on, I must disclose that I actually have little interest in religion, although I have a basic understanding of Christianity, having formerly been a Christian. However, I am not one to use bible verses as weapons. In fact I can’t because I don’t know any. I only deal with religion to the extent that I must because of the way it has inflicted itself on the political process and has become a constitutional issue, mostly because there are religious people who don’t understand the constitution, or try to bend it to weaken the separation of church and state.
Having said that, let’s have a look:

Wow Babylon! End times! All because of legal gay marriage. I must ask, while we have not had gay marriage for very long, we have had gay people around for much longer and many have been “out “ for a while now. In addition, we have had everything from divorce, sex outside of marriage, not to mention racism, slavery, state sanctioned murder, war, and so much more evil. Where has the wrath of god been? Makes me wonder what is so special about same sex marriage being legally sanctioned. The article continues:

Well yes, making same sex marriage the law is what will happen, but the part about “prohibit any state from establishing the parameters of marriage” is just absurd, over the top rhetoric. This is the same type of idiocy that we see on this forum and now we know where it comes from. The issue is marriage equality. Gays will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex within, and only within the parameters that apply to opposite sex couples. The above implies that it will be anything goes; incest, polygamy, group marriage and that is just absurd. There is more:

More of the same idiocy. No one will be suing churches. Who the hell would want to get married where they are not welcome, by someone who is hostile to their union, who does not think that they should be married? And of course there is first amendment protection and in most case state religious exemptions.

This is all more proof, as though we need more, that the religious right is desperate, frightened and will spare no rhetoric in an attempt to hold back gay rights.
And if they really believe this stuff, it’s evidence that they have driven themselves to paranoid delusional thinking. They should just be written off as the lunatic fringe that they are and paid no mind.

Note: None of this is to be taken as a condemnation of all Christians or Christianity

 

Do You spend all your time sitting on your head? It is about equal rights under the law and not allowing people like you to discriminate against others. The day of the dinosaur is coming to an end.

 

It is good the bigotry of the dinosaurs is dying off, as in previous generations who fought tooth and nail against equal rights for for others who denied them.

They won't go without a roar, though.

 

And I think it is worth noting that nonconsensual relationships are, you know, kinda inherently unequal.

 

I haven't seen that being the case. When it comes to the nonbelievers, they are not concerned with good or bad; but with freedom, consent, and other qualities that may maximize human individuality .

It's not ridiculous at all, as God is the source of goodness itself, and His command are based on His divine wisdom.

How is this pertinent? Anyway, one can similarity argue that any crime against humanity can be excused according to human reason. So what?

I'll concede that.

Well, we aren't talking about recipes for chicken wings, but actions that actually have an impact- negative or positive or neutral- on human society.

However, you're correct, something that is not beneficial does not make it immoral. But do you not agree that engaging in something beneficial to mankind is better than engaging in an activity that provides no benefits to human society?

OK. Now, do yoy agree that something that is not good on a small scale is bad (if not far worse) on a much larger scale?

How "actions impact people" is primarily dictated by societal norms. This is why empathy is irrelevant, as it is not an absolute concept which we can refer to to begin with.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

And yet you want to discriminate against those who want to have sex with children.

 

Please. Seek help.

Seriously.

 

Nope everyone must under the law be an adult, because children cannot give consent. So sorry you are not going to get your own agenda accepted, maybe you should go ahead and start your movement and see how well you do getting the law to stop discriminating against you and your ilk, maybe you can redefine what a child is, how young is acceptable for you, 14, 12, even younger?

 

Your logic perhaps, but then again, you probably give credence to virgin birth

 

That maximize human individuality and wellbeing, yes. When you are concerned about that for others, and not just yourself, that’s called morality. Most believers, thankfully, are concerned with the same.

When it comes to other believers, they are not concerned with good or bad, but with authoritarianism, arbitrary laws and other qualities that maximize human subjection.

Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma? Pick something that you believe is evil, such as rape (I hope we agree that rape is morally wrong). If you are a theist, have two options:

1) Rape is evil because God says it is evil.
2) God says that rape is evil because, in his wisdom, he recognizes something evil about it.

If #2 is true, there is no need for God in questions of morality. Morality is based on reason, not God’s will. It is external to God and is something that God, like us, recognizes about the external world. If #2 is true, morality does not require God.

Divine command theory says #1 is true. This is the only ethical theory which requires God. It says that the only reason rape is wrong is because God says so; he could have just as easily said it was moral instead. God isn’t actually basing his declaration on wisdom or anything else – if morality were based on wisdom, then we wouldn't need religion. If God bases morality on anything other than his own will, even wisdom, then morality exists apart from God.

What don’t you understand about it? If divine command theory is true – and it is the only moral theory that requires god – then ethics are arbitrary. Murder? Okay when God commands it. Rape? Okay when God commands it. Etc.

And we can use reason to discuss why they are incorrect to do so. Faith-based morality doesn’t have that option.

It would be better for you to formulate your argument so that we can discuss it. If this is going to devolve into “Homosexuality is wrong, because if we were ALL gay, there would be no more babies”, then no, that argument is absurd. That’s like saying no one should have children because if we ALL had children, we’d overpopulate the earth.

How “actions impact people” is primarily dictated by psychology and physical reality. Whether a bullet to the head results in a wound or slavery results in human misery are functions of reality, not just societal norms.

Are you honestly arguing that whether or not an action harms someone else has no bearing on its morality? I’m not even sure we are using the same language anymore.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. The computer you are typing on is infinitely more unnatural than homosexuality, but I don’t see you condemning your computer as an immoral, unnatural object.

I’m just going to assume you are talking about anal sex, since you aren’t being specific. Religious people seem to think that male homosexuality is synonymous with anal sex – which is why they also like to pretend that lesbians don’t exist when having these discussions.

Heterosexual couples have anal sex as well, and there are plenty of homosexual couples that don’t have anal sex. The precautions needed are quite easy and quite effective. All you need to protect both parties as a condom, lube and a considerate partner. The same precautions – sometimes with the lube, sometimes without it, depending on the situation – are used for safe vaginal sex between heterosexual partners.

By the way, sexually transmitted diseases are far more prominent among heterosexual couples than lesbian couples. Maybe we should outlaw heterosexuality?

No precaution protects the consent of the child.

I gave you a straightforward answer. Would you like to give a straightforward response? We were talking about why consent is necessary, and you challenged my statement that consent should always be necessary for sex, so I gave you an argument for why that is the case.

If you only want to talk about pedophilia, then read the same argument I gave with a small change: “Because empathy and reason condemn nonconsensual sex with children. You would, by definition, not want someone to have forced themselves on you against your will as a child, and allowing nonconsensual sex would not provide for any greater good.”

Did you seriously, in a discussion about pedophilia, put “forcing” in quotation marks? Has your religious morality and antipathy for empathy jaded you so much that you can’t even acknowledge the fact that nonconsensual sex is nonconsensual?

The answer was in the previous quote I gave. We force our kids to eat vegetables and go to school because it serves a higher good. Forcing things on them that harm them, however – beating them, raping them, murdering them, torturing them – is something that we humanist ethicists can label as evil. Luckily, our laws tend to agree with us on that.

Protecting children from harm is not discrimination.

Also, on a separate note, you are wrong about empathy being a matter of societal norms. Children as young as 1 year old exhibit empathy. Animals exhibit empathy. Empathy is literally an objectively part of our neurology, through mirror neurons and the supramarginal gyrus.

The only things required for morality are the knowledge that your actions have consequences (reason), and care for the way those consequences impact others (empathy).

 

Human well-being? I don't think so. Things like porn and drugs don't benefit human well-being. This is why nonbelievers use arguments that are built around the notion of individual freedom. Why legalize drugs? Because I should be able to do whatever I please. And so forth.

Nonsense. God is the source of goodness and morality, and the believers wish to carry out His orders on earth. Your personal opinion on God's Will is inconsequential.

Yes, though this philosophical argument doesn't pose a problem for Islam as it does for Christianity.

I choose both options.

Actually, there is, because unlike humans, He is all-wise. Our reasons for why something is immoral may not concur with His reasons. Further, what we consider bad may really be good for us; and what we see as good may ultimately be bad for us.

But according to believers, morality isn't based on human wisdom, but God's wisdom.

You'll have to prove that these things have been commanded by God in the first place.

But people will still differ in their reasoning with regards to certain actions. You readily assume (perhaps naively) that everyone will concur with your reasoning, as if it's just too perfect to deny.

Faith and reason- based morality certainly allow us that option.

Actually, my argument is that homosexual sex produces nothing on a small scale. A small society of practicing homosexuals will eventually go extinct. So if it's bad on a small scale, it's wrong on a bigger one.

Your argument is flawed (and irrelevant). Everyone having children will not overpopulate the Earth. That's only the case if everyone was having children irresponsibly.

Sure, but when it comes to certain issues, societal norms are dominant and may even influence thoughts on psychology. Liberal attitudes in the West for example led to homosexuality being dropped off the list of mental disorders.

No, I'm arguing that in some cases, how society views certain actions can heavily influence how those on the receiving end of those actions respond to said actions.

I'm concerned with homosexual sex, not homosexuality. Humans were designed (or evolved) to have sex with the opposite sex, which is why homosexuals have to take further precautions in fulfilling their desires.

We focus on males, because unlike females, males have high sex drives. Thus, there is a much greater danger of males spreading and acquiring diseased than females. The perfect balance of course is one between a male and female, some people just don't understand that.

Yes, heterosexuals can have anal sex, but they are outlawed from doing it. This makes sense, given that the rectum was designed (or evolved) to act as an exit for fecal matter, and not as an entrance for penises.

Or maybe we should outlaw fornication outside marriage?

Irrelevant, as we are discussing the physical aspects of sex.

And your argument has proved to not hold any water.

1. Reason too can condemn homosexual sex.

2. Empathy is based on feelings and emotions, and to a certain extent depends on the nature of a given society. Just because you find hanging convicts wrong (based on you empathizing with said convicts) does not make death by hanging absolutely wrong. Members of different societies will disagree with you.

It's necessary for me to put the word in quotation marks because you have so far not given me any concrete reasons as to why we should be concerned with the fact thats it's not nonconsensual in the first place.

Well, I don't see how homosexual sex serves any "higher good." All it does really is satisfy the lustful feelings of homosexuals.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what some people say to those who advocate homosexual sex.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no hopes in getting any agenda accepted. I'm merely interested in pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of those who advocate homosexual sex.

 

Those of us who advocate equal treatment under the law, and therefore SSM, realize that the sex act has nothing to do with law. We also don't dwell on it like you do. What is with that fantasy with gay sex?

 

Sure sounds like you do either it is pedophilia or discrimination, pick one, everyone else already knows what it is. One more time, I know this is real hard for you, but it is not about sex, it about rights, one of these days you might actually grasp that simple fact.

 

Have fun with your straw man. I’ve you’d like to have a discussion with me instead of your invention, I’m still here. I fully recognize that unbridled anarchy produces problems, which is why I understand the need of some restrictions of behavior for the greater good. I’ve eluded to this several times.

Make up your mind. Does God, in his wisdom, recognize morality, or is it the product of his will?

It is the exact some problem for both religions.

Then you have abandoned reason.

You are appealing to reasons that do not require God for their existence. These would be things that we would be ignorant of because of our limitations, and God would be cognizant of because of his wisdom. That is a purely epistemological issue. These truths would still be true even if there were not a God there to recognize them, just as a tree exists even if it has not yet been discovered by any human.

Morality can’t be based on anyone’s wisdom. Wisdom is the recognition of something. My wisdom tells me that microbes cause disease; that does not mean that microbes are based on my wisdom. That’s ridiculous.

Do I need to define the word “if”?

Whether or not people agree has nothing to do with the issue. People disagree about what God says; does that mean there is no truth of the matter?

Reason? Certainly. That’s why reason exists. Faith? Not at all. All faith-based arguments, whether moral or otherwise, have no further recourse than “Yu-huh, nu-uh” arguments.

Your argument is practically identical to the one I brought up, and it is just as absurd. Based on your argument, everyone should be required to have children, everyone should be required to marry, etc.

What would happen to a small scale society where everyone was a cook and no one performed any other job? It would go extinct. Therefore, under your reasoning, cooks are bad on the large scale. What if everyone in a small scale society was male? They would go extinct. Being male must be bad on a large scale. What if everyone in a small scale society were single? Extinct. Being single must be immoral. Again, this is virtually identical to the argument I anticipated. No reasonable person could take it seriously.

Wrong. I’m using the exact same reasoning that you are. If everyone had a child, our growth would be unsustainable. But let’s use another example. What if there were a small scale society that only had female children? It would go extinct. Having female children must be bad on the large scale.

Your argument is the same as the one I dismissed earlier. You are arguing that an action is only justified if it would benefit mankind if everyone did it. That’s ridiculous.

Science led it to being dropped off of the list. Homosexuals are capable of leading lives without disruption, so long as knuckle-dragging bigots don’t threaten them. They can hold down a job, hold down long-term relationships with friends and loved ones, take up hobbies and otherwise lead happy lives without their sexuality disrupting these things. By definition, that precludes it from being a disorder.

Depressive disorders have a negative impact on these things. That’s why they are disorders.
Anxiety disorders have a negative impact on these things. That’s why they are disorders.
Compulsive disorders have a negative impact on these things. That’s why they are disorders.

Take it from someone who has a real disorder – depersonalization disorder – there’s a big difference between a scientifically diagnosed disorder and something that was originally only a “disorder” because of pressure from bigots.

If that’s what you were arguing, you wouldn’t have dismissed empathy altogether. You would have only dismissed empathy in “certain actions”.

Homosexual sex exists in nature. Your computer is more unnatural than homosexual sex.

Everyone has to take precautions in fulfilling their desires. And evolution and evolutionary “design” are a terrible argument against homosexuality.

That’s a terrible excuse. If your concern were about disease, you wouldn’t object to lesbianism as well.

There is no rational basis for making this a universal claim.

Okay, now you are actually talking about a societal norm in a way that makes sense. Yes. Outlawing anal sex is a societal norm for your culture. It isn’t for mine.

”Designed” is a theological claim. And evolution does not provide a rational argument against anal sex. Anal sex occurs in nature. As do masturbation and oral sex. Evolution does not prescribe that all life forms exhibit sex in exactly the same way and in the same way every time.

First you say that religion isn’t about authoritarianism, and now you use religion to defend authoritarianism. Which is it?

If I have to explain the physical dangers of pedophilia to you, this conversation is lost.
And no, I do not consider consent to be irrelevant to the discussion.

My argument was that consent should always be required for sex, based on empathy and reason. You have done nothing to demonstrate that it doesn’t hold water. Which part do you disagree with.

No, it can’t. Your “if everyone did it” argument is ludicrous. If it held water, then we should also condemn being single, having female children, having any children at all, being a cook, having any specific occupation at all, etc.

Empathy is an understanding of the condition of others. When it contains feelings and emotions, these feelings and emotions are in response to factual conditions.

1. That’s not what quotation marks are for.

2. Reason and empathy are plenty enough reason to care.

And you still have not given any reason why you care, if you do. In fact, your icon says you are from Lebanon, where Sh’ia can receive judicial permission to marry girls as young as 9. Other Muslim countries have similarly low ages of “consent”. You see, that’s how you use quotation marks; I used them because I don’t actually believe that a 9 year old can consent to sex or marriage.

You are confused because you have completely misunderstood the argument. As we have already established, and you have agreed to repeatedly, simply failing to serve the “higher good” does not prove that something is evil. If it were, hot wings and blue cheese dip would be evil.

Look at the context of “higher good” in my original sentence. I was saying that it was permissible to deny a child their consent in situations like their diet and their education, because you are working for the child’s higher good. I didn’t say “the only excuse for doing anything at all is if it serves the ‘higher good’”, I was saying “denying a child their consent is sometimes justifiable if it serves that child’s higher good”.

Societal context doesn’t matter. I was talking about the murder, rape and torture of children.

Rape, murder and torture harm the victims of rape, murder and torture. Do you seriously not understand this? Societal norms can't change physical fact.

 

There are a few people on this thread that need to read and digest this. Jefferson was clear about religious freedom. Christianity is not to be favored above any other beliefs. Christians, nor any others, may impose their beliefs on others. Freedom FROM religion is the other side of the same coin. You cannot have freedom of religion, if religion can be imposed on you. .

Jefferson made his views clear......