North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[NonServiam]

He was created by his parents, and they were created by their parents …and somehow this process just got started on its own.

The current thinking supported by evidence is called abiogenesis. It’s a hypothesis, but it seems like it has a sound basis. Look it up.

[quoteif God’s existence was suddenly proven, […]
behavior will now have to conform to this new belief. Actually, if it were demonstrated that a god exists (let’s say that this god appears to everyone at once and announces his existence), it wouldn’t necessarily change my behavior. Once I know that a god exists, I would have to consider the question of whether I should listen to what this being says and/or “worship” this being (whether the being is worthy of worship, etc.)

It’s not a foregone conclusion that I would obey and worship a god simply because it’s more powerful than I am. To me, authority and respect have to be earned, so before I would “obey” anything, I would want to learn more about this god…but only after it has been conclusively demonstrated that this god is even real in the first place.

 

[Boogerman]

If the basic sinfulness of homosexuality is that it unnatural and if applied universally would end the human race - why is celibacy not considered a similar sin? It too would end the human race. What am I missing?

 

[CopticChristian]

What in the world does this have to do with anything?

Stop asking rhetorical questions, for which the answer is obviously “yes,” and make a point already.

So,

You believe that there was a first man and a first woman. You do not believe in God due to lack of evidence. You believe that your life has purpose for you and that would include a belief that each individual has purpose for them.

This is CAF and you came here and posted an opinion.

Do you agree that information from the past is added to the present so that information of today is built on what we know from the past? In other words we have computers because of building on past technology. We have Astronauts because of technology of aerodynamics and flight.

So you answer yes to the above. You lack patience.

So then you would agree that homosexuality came into being sometime after the first man and first woman and after the first birth as a result of union of that first man and first woman as well. Yes?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

I know you must have worked very hard for this - but, allow me to acknowledge that you have truly earned the name you chose for this list. My guess is that you looked at the orignial source and have fully embraced the concept. You are in my prayers.

As a matter of fact, I am familiar with abiogenesis - but, apparently, you are not familiar with its problems. Here is a link to conider: trueorigin.org/abio.asp But, even with this approach that you present - no effort is made to being with nothing and then take it from there (wherever ‘there’ would be). We just don’t logically start out with atoms, or chemicals or ‘primordial soup’ - because, we are still left in logical wonderment about where these items came from.

If the Author left an ‘instruction book’ - and basically said not to try and plug a 110v machine in a 220v - chances are there would be some who would try it, destroy their ‘machine’ and then complain about a loss of ‘freedom’ to do things as they please. My guess is that the folks in North Carolina, along with 27 other states - all rejected same-sex unions - are trying to get and appreciation and acknowledgement that the ‘owner’s manual’ makes sense - even from a humanistic position.

God bless

The current thinking supported by evidence is called . It’s a hypothesis, but it seems like it has a sound basis. Look it up.

[quoteif God’s existence was suddenly proven, […]
behavior will now have to conform to this new belief.

Actually, if it were demonstrated that a god exists (let’s say that this god appears to everyone at once and announces his existence), it wouldn’t necessarily change my behavior. Once I know that a god exists, I would have to consider the question of whether I should listen to what this being says and/or “worship” this being (whether the being is worthy of worship, etc.)

It’s not a foregone conclusion that I would obey and worship a god simply because it’s more powerful than I am. To me, authority and respect have to be earned, so before I would “obey” anything, I would want to learn more about this god…but only after it has been conclusively demonstrated that this god is even real in the first place.

 

[NonServiam]

As a matter of fact, I am familiar with abiogenesis - but, apparently, you are not familiar with its problems.

I correctly described abiogenesis as the “current thinking” among people who professionally study the subject.

What you don’t seem to grasp is that I’m not some sort of devout believer in abiogenesis. If it turns out to be true – and can be confirmed by evidence – then great. If it turns out to be false, then people who professionally study the subject will continue to look for explanations.

It seems like you think that the options are either 1) abiogeneis is absolutely correct or 2) your particular god gave rise to everything. And those are so far from the only two options that it’s a ridiculous false dichotomy.

 

[NonServiam]

So then you would agree that homosexuality came into being sometime after the first man and first woman and after the first birth as a result of union of that first man and first woman as well. Yes?

No.

Homosexuality – which we observe in other animal species, by the way – was very likely practiced by species that were around before humans, including by the species that was our common ancestor with apes. So homosexuality is older than human beings.

But even if you were correct in thinking that homosexuality were something uniquely invented by humans, it still wouldn’t tell us anything about whether or not we should do it. I mean, the practice of shaving our faces arose after the “first beard,” and as far as I know humans are unique in the animal kingdom for shaving, but no one suggests that it’s “wrong” or “against our nature” for us to shave our faces.

 

[CopticChristian]

No.

Homosexuality – which we observe in other animal species, by the way – was very likely practiced by species that were around before humans, including by the species that was our common ancestor with apes. So homosexuality is older than human beings.

But even if you were correct in thinking that homosexuality were something uniquely invented by humans, it still wouldn’t tell us anything about whether or not we should do it. I mean, the practice of shaving our faces arose after the “first beard,” and as far as I know humans are unique in the animal kingdom for shaving, but no one suggests that it’s “wrong” or “against our nature” for us to shave our faces.

Non,

You introduce animals. Do animals have marriages?

Shaving. Is shaving perverse?

 

[NonServiam]

You introduce animals. Do animals have marriages?

You are the one who said that homosexuality came after the “first man and woman.” I was responding by pointing out that homosexuality is likely much older than the human species.

If you have a serious response to that point, then make it.

Shaving. Is shaving perverse?

That’s my point. You’re implying that homosexuality is “perverse” or “shouldn’t be done” because it wasn’t done by “the first man and woman.” But if that’s your standard for considering an action “perverse,” then you have to consider shaving “perverse” as well because it equally wasn’t done by the first humans and because it thwarts nature (the natural growing of hair on the face).

 

[exnihilo]

Leaving aside the fact that the founding fathers – i.e. the guys who wrote the Constitution and set up the government – were largely Deists who believed in a non-interventionist god, these founding fathers wrote a document that clearly says that there will be no national religion. As the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly says – ratified by the Congress and all – the US government is in no way based on the Christian religion…or any other religion. No one can sensibly dispute that fact.

The claim that the Founding Fathers of the US were Deists is oft repeated but weak. Intercessory prayer was offered in writing the founding documents and asked for by the first president under the current constitution, George Washington. At the founding of the current federal government many states had state churches, religious tests for office and other indications of not only Christian faith but a government association with that faith.

The Treaty of Tripoli is just one piece of evidence. It was signed by President John Adams who largely wrote the Massachusetts constitution which provided for public funds to instruct Christian ministers. You’re claims, or implied claims, do not seem to account for all of the evidence.

 

[NonServiam]

The claim that the Founding Fathers of the US were Deists is oft repeated but weak.

And luckily, it’s entirely irrelevant to what we do today. We today are no more beholden to their religious views than we are to their views on slavery.

The bottom line is that the government that they set up is clearly not a religious government. Legislating religious dogma of a particular religious group is not appropriate.

 

[exnihilo]

And luckily, it’s entirely irrelevant to what we do today. We today are no more beholden to their religious views than we are to their views on slavery.

The bottom line is that the government that they set up is clearly not a religious government. Legislating religious dogma of a particular religious group is not appropriate.

I’m confused why you would bring up the Founding Fathers if you do not think they are relevant. I would think they are relevant to the extent of determining the meaning of the constitution so far as it is a contract. If the constitution is irrelevant then yes indeed the Founding Father’s thoughts and opinions are irrelevant.

I agree the federal government was not a religious government. But neither was it sold as anything like the government we have today. It was sold as a loose confederation of states with a relatively weak federal government. The federal government was certainly not sold as one which would have the power to make illegal prayer in public when many of the states had state churches and religious tests.

You say legislating religious dogma is not appropriate. That sounds nice but the question is how does one separate religious dogma from other ideas? Most religions say murder is wrong. Because that is religious dogma should the state get rid of laws against murder? I’m sure you’ll say of course not because the state exists to promote the good. If so then we have to determine what is the good. If there is no metaphysical good, i.e. religious, then there is no real good but only opinions. I would think it far worse for the state to codify the arbitrary tastes of individuals as opposed to the metaphysical truths we’ve discovered.

 

[NonServiam]

I’m confused why you would bring up the Founding Fathers if you do not think they are relevant.

I didn’t. Someone else brought them up, and in response, I noted that what’s important is that the government they established isn’t religious (I even prefaced my comments about their Deism by saying, “leaving aside the fact that…” demonstrating that I didn’t consider it important for the argument I was making).

The answers to your questions are all there in what I write.

I agree the federal government was not a religious government. But neither was it sold as anything like the government we have today.

Agreed. The founding fathers built into the Constitution ways to change and transform both the document and the government because they wisely realize that they don’t know everything, that they might have gotten some things wrong, and that different times will call for different measures. They created an elastic system of government, rather than a static one.

You say legislating religious dogma is not appropriate. That sounds nice but the question is how does one separate religious dogma from other ideas? Most religions say murder is wrong.

Not only do most religions say it, it’s a vital part of almost all societies since the dawn of time, predating Judeo-Christian scriptures. I would go so far as to say that outlawing murder is by definition foundational to having a safe and orderly society.

Although the prohibition against murder is also found in almost all religions – as we would expect for a rule so necessary to civilizaiton – we cannot say that the prohibition originated in the doctrines of a single religion.

I certainly don’t think of “Do not murder” as a specifically Christian – or even specifically Theist – injunction.

 

[exnihilo]

Not only do most religions say it, it’s a vital part of almost all societies since the dawn of time, predating Judeo-Christian scriptures. I would go so far as to say that outlawing murder is by definition foundational to having a safe and orderly society.

Although the prohibition against murder is also found in almost all religions – as we would expect for a rule so necessary to civilizaiton – we cannot say that the prohibition originated in the doctrines of a single religion.

I certainly don’t think of “Do not murder” as a specifically Christian – or even specifically Theist – injunction.

It would seem a condemnation, at least to some degree, of homosexuality has also been a part of many societies since the dawn of time. I’m not an expert on religion but religions that practice human sacrifice would certainly be an exception, or at least problematic, to the prohibition on murder being how we think on it today going back through history. Some of the most advanced ancient civilizations had human sacrifice. In fact ‘do not sacrifice humans’ is something that might be somewhat unique for Judaism and then Christianity.

But we still need to figure out how to separate religious dogma from other ideas. It seems that religious dogma is beliefs found in religion that do not agree with modern ideas. Where religious dogma agrees with popular culture then we seem to have no problem incorporating it into our laws. We see this confusion even among self proclaimed Christians who justify the welfare state on their beliefs and yet oppose other moral laws.

 

[NonServiam]

It would seem a condemnation, at least to some degree, of homosexuality has also been a part of many societies since the dawn of time.

Well, it’s a good thing then that our laws aren’t based on “let’s just use whatever kooky taboos that have been in place since the dawn of time.”

Murder – unlike the prohibition on homosexuality or on touching menstruating women or eating shellfish – actually damages society, which is the reason we outlaw it.

But we still need to figure out how to separate religious dogma from other ideas. It seems that religious dogma is beliefs found in religion that do not agree with modern ideas.

No. Religious dogma consists of beliefs that are unique to a religion (or occasionally religions) and that are based not on secular reasoning but on undemonstrated spiritual assertions.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, it’s a good thing then that our laws aren’t based on “let’s just use whatever kooky taboos that have been in place since the dawn of time.”

Kooky is a judgment. I dont know against what standard you are using. But if it is just your opinion and not some metaphysical truth then it really is irrelevant. And I dont mean that in a flippant way.

Murder – unlike the prohibition on homosexuality or on touching menstruating women or eating shellfish – actually damages society, which is the reason we outlaw it.

That implies society has a goal. It may well have a goal. If so can you tell me what the goal is? If it does have a goal but that goal is just the sum of people’s opinions, and not based on any real metaphysical truth, then it is of no consequence.

No. Religious dogma consists of beliefs that are unique to a religion (or occasionally religions) and that are based not on secular reasoning but on undemonstrated spiritual assertions.

But we can reason, using Natural Law, against gay marriage. In fact we can reason against a lot of things that are called religious dogma using Natural Law.

What is the demonstrated secular reason that murder is wrong? You may have thought about it and have some good ideas. But I’m sure you must know that most people who agree murder is wrong have no justification for that belief other than it being a received truth, like the Christian Faith.

 

[NonServiam]

Kooky is a judgment.

My point was that we don’t institute laws simply because “they’re old.” We institute laws because we have good reason for them. That the particular old laws you brought up were kooky was a side observation I was making.

That implies society has a goal. It may well have a goal. If so can you tell me what the goal is? If it does have a goal but that goal is just the sum of people’s opinions, and not based on any real metaphysical truth, then it is of no consequence.

Well, I obviously don’t think there’s any “metaphysical truth,” but I deny that that means that our societal goals are “of no consequence.”

Just about everyone wants to live in a safe and orderly society where our basic needs are met: that near-universal desire is the basis for what we call society.

Whether you think it’s “of consequence” doesn’t matter in the slightest to me.

But we can reason, using Natural Law, against gay marriage. In fact we can reason against a lot of things that are called religious dogma using Natural Law.

There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by.

What is the demonstrated secular reason that murder is wrong?

Let’s leave “right” and “wrong” out of it. We’re talking about why actions should be made illegal.

And it should be obvious that if our chief societal goal is to have a safe and orderly society, we need to outlaw individual citizens privately murdering one another. I’m almost surprised I have to explain this: the opposite of safety is being killed indiscriminately, and the opposite of order is a society where one’s life – or the lives of family and friends – can be taken away by another human being without warning. Thus, in the interest of promoting the kind of society we want, we outlaw murder.

I trust that makes a great deal of sense.

But I’m sure you must know that most people who agree murder is wrong have no justification for that belief other than it being a received truth, like the Christian Faith.

That most people don’t think very hard about these questions is irrelevant to what we’re talking about here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

There you go again…pontifficating your own personal opinion as fact - and avoiding any reference other then you say it is so. Actually, this approach has become both tedious and unproductive - either back up what you say or spare us from non-responsive utterings.

Natural Law has a long and distinguished history - and Scorates predates the Catholic Church by centuries. Check this out: freenation.org/a/f42l1.html#4.2

Here is something to whet your appetite:

“But first let me make a point about the burden of proof. Most critics of Natural Law assume that the burden of proof lies with the proponent of Natural Law — presumably because they see Natural Law as something bizarre and implausible, something one couldn’t sensibly believe unless there were a knock-down argument for it. But in fact, to believe in Natural Law is simply to believe that there are moral standards that transcend the practices and customs of any given community — that there are rational grounds for condemning the Nazi regime as immoral, that it is possible to be justified in so condemning it, even if we assume that what the Nazis did was perfectly in accordance with the values of Nazi culture. When we condemn Nazism, we don’t ordinarily take ourselves to be expressing a purely personal, subjective preference, like the preference for chocolate over vanilla; rather, our ordinary practices of praising and condemning seem to implicitly assume that there are objective moral standards, i.e., that there is a Natural Law to which manmade laws are answerable.”

I fully admit, it is far more convenient to live the life of license and moral indifference if there were no Natural Law - but, that is not the issue. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is totally agianst the Natural Law, common sense, and God’s Law. Surely, we all need to acknowledge that there are laws outside of ourselves - and outside of selfish sexual events.

Your desire for a safe society on one hand while allowing for unemcumbered homosexual behaviors are mutually exclusive. If you go with the former, you can have a society where children are conceived in love, reared with protection, guidance and a living example that men and women are fundamentally different - and not just with genitals. If you chose the latter, you ultimately have confusion as to which behavior can be expressed as a complete person, and ultimately you have the preditory practice of older men preying on young boys which traces its public display of a society run amuck with the ancient Greeks. Pederasty is the natural consequence of a society that does not protect its children stfrancis.edu/content/en/marzec/loq01/MikeBuss.htm

If the outlawing of private citizens murdering one another is your criteria for a safe and orderly society - is there no other form of protection the citizens can expect. If maybe their property is included, then maybe their bodies, too. Ultimately, no matter what you personally believe, we are all here - and we all came from a long, long line that can be generally studied as the discipline of History. Those societies that value the family as the seeds of their future and the source of their strength tend to outlast those who want to see how fast their candel can burn if both ends are lite.

God bless

There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by.

Let’s leave “right” and “wrong” out of it. We’re talking about why actions should be made illegal.

And it should be obvious that if our chief societal goal is to have a safe and orderly society, we need to outlaw individual citizens privately murdering one another. I’m almost surprised I have to explain this: the opposite of safety is being killed indiscriminately, and the opposite of order is a society where one’s life – or the lives of family and friends – can be taken away by another human being without warning. Thus, in the interest of promoting the kind of society we want, we outlaw murder.

I trust that makes a great deal of sense.

That most people don’t think very hard about these questions is irrelevant to what we’re talking about here.

 

[NonServiam]

Actually, this approach has become both tedious and unproductive

Then stop talking to me. I’m not forcing you.

to believe in Natural Law is simply to believe that there are moral standards that transcend the practices and customs of any given community

As I indicated in my post above, we’re not talking about morality here. We’re talking about legality. Save the philosophical musings about morality for some other thread and let’s talk about whether these laws aid our goal for a safe, orderly society or not.

Your desire for a safe society on one hand while allowing for unemcumbered homosexual behaviors are mutually exclusive.

That’s your argument? Allowing gay people to get married is going to lead to pedophilia? How exactly do you intend to make that argument?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

You are not forcing me. My concern is really not so much with you, but rather the other readers who not posting. Personally, I think yoiur arguments are weak and misleading - at least I hope to point this out. Why not start making some sense that goes beyond one’s pleasure principle is the hightest authority. It is obvious you did not understand the links I provided to you…or, could it be you did not even bother with them?

Once you separate objctive morality based on the Natural Law from human law, you wind up with despotic rule where no morality is allowed expept from the despotic authority. The Nazi abuse of power and law are classic examples. The laws against homosexual marriage are for the safety of society - they also are based on objective moral standards that have withstood the test of time. What kind of standards are you seriously advocating for society - hedonism?

I realize that pederestry as a logical outcome for encourageing homosexual behavior is something you have dismissed out of hand, but where do you think all this history about ancient Greece and the ‘love’ of old men for young boys comes from? That’s the human argument - it is historic, logical and destructive. It also shines a bright light on what develops when these homosexuals fatigue of sodomizing one another and move on to younger prey. Yes, that’s the argument. So, tell me, what is your argument that such an outcome is not only likely but inevitable?

God bless

Then stop talking to me. I’m not forcing you.

As I indicated in my post above, we’re not talking about morality here. We’re talking about legality. Save the philosophical musings about morality for some other thread and let’s talk about whether these laws aid our goal for a safe, orderly society or not.

That’s your argument? Allowing gay people to get married is going to lead to pedophilia? How exactly do you intend to make that argument?

 

[exnihilo]

Well, I obviously don’t think there’s any “metaphysical truth,” but I deny that that means that our societal goals are “of no consequence.”

Then everyone’s opinions are meaningless even if aggregated through a vote into law. If there is nothing metaphysical then there is no meaning.

There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by.

What are the valid reasons for creating a law? You’ve excluded Natural Law. But what standards will we use? People often tell me what I can’t use to think with but they never really tell me what I can use.

Let’s leave “right” and “wrong” out of it. We’re talking about why actions should be made illegal.

Aren’t laws passed because the action they prohibit is wrong? Or do you maintain that laws are simply arbitrary rules with no moral component? The consequences of the law being divorced from morality should be plainly clear.

Seems to me the pro homosexual lobby is always telling me legalizing ‘gay marriage’ is the right thing to do. I think I’ve got the concept. When libertines use moral arguments then morality has power and should be a factor in our civil decisions. When conservatives use moral arguments they are just being silly.

And it should be obvious that if our chief societal goal is to have a safe and orderly society, we need to outlaw individual citizens privately murdering one another. I’m almost surprised I have to explain this: the opposite of safety is being killed indiscriminately, and the opposite of order is a society where one’s life – or the lives of family and friends – can be taken away by another human being without warning. Thus, in the interest of promoting the kind of society we want, we outlaw murder.

I trust that makes a great deal of sense.

Obvious? Hardly. It is certainly not self-evident, so you’ll have to reason to it. First you’d need to establish what society is and why it has any goals and why I should care about those goals. From a Christian perspective that is easy to answer. But since, according to your standards, I must abandon Christian thinking when talking about society and the law then you’ll have to explain this to me.

You’ve proclaimed public safety is some good I and all others should seek. But you’ve not established this using reasoning you’ve just declared it. And since you won’t allow Christians to just declare morality, or even reason it from Natural Law, then I’m certainly not going to accept your mere declarations of morality, which really can’t even be morality since you’ve denied the metaphysical.