You know that the question of “where morals come from” has exercised philosophers, theologians and many others for millennia. Without getting into a drawn out philosophical discussion my moral beliefs have been shaped by early childhood influences, the golden rule, spiritual advisers, United Church of Christ, study of ethical, neurological, psychological and other disciplines, deontology and experience working in mental health. When faced with a moral dilemma I seek appropriate guidance.
I am sure you will find a lot to criticize, but keep in mind I never claimed that one’s moral beliefs are objective.
Claiming moral beliefs are objective is a necessary first step, otherwise you are conceding that moral beliefs are groundless.
If that is your claim, then whether or not gay marriage is accepted should make no difference to you because there is no objective moral difference between a society with gay marriage and one without.
You had no reason to complain when gay marriages didn’t exist and no reason to complain when others advocate against them since YOU can offer no objective reasons either way, because for YOU the decision isn’t an objective one, merely the choice of the majority.
If some of us decide to use sound rational judgements to convince others that gay marriage is an objectively flawed moral entity, and objectively bad for society, you are relegated to silence since YOU claim it isn’t something to be objectively determined at all.
Perhaps more people will side with you because of social coercion but that, again, would not make gay marriage objectively good, merely a social convention and a bad one at that.
For my part, I will continue to think soundly and use good reasons to try to get through to “most people” on the issue, presuming that most people actually do appreciate sound moral reasoning rather than being badgered by loud and insisting voices that they had better “believe” or risk being called homophobes, bigots or worse. Perhaps made to lose their businesses or good name because they don’t “buy in.”
If that is your view on how the morality of a culture SHOULD be determined, you are welcome to it.
I, on the other hand, am not convinced the “gay marriage” crowd have a substantive or sound argument to make. Sure they are belligerent, aggressive and demean their opposition, but those were never, for me, good reasons to accept any moral principle or behaviour.
The more sound reasoning is pushed against that position, the more aggressive its proponents will become. They will show their true nature and motives. It is happening already and will continue to happen as more and better arguments are brought forth. The resort will be to silence their opposition by aggressive campaigns of slander and threat. Those, too, are happening. Why? Is the question to be asked.
Because the sound arguments are on the side of gay marriage proponents? No.
If they were, there would be no need for sanctions, name calling and aggressive campaigns. The proponents would merely make the arguments and let the soundness of those arguments speak for themselves. That is not happening, now is it?
Which side is shouting “Bigots!” “Homophobes!” “Prejudice!” so loudly hoping any listeners will miss the fact that no real rational arguments exist to back their position? They have merely made a claim that the opposing position is discriminatory without actually demonstrating how it is using indisputable logical reasoning.
