Choice

But see- it seems now that the moral relativist is making a value judgement here. You didn't explicitly state it--but the tone of your post suggests that racism is morally wrong, evil and bad. And it is--to be sure. But if you are going to be a moral relativist, you can't make a value judgement like that. The difference between racism or not being racist is analogous to the difference between ice-cream flavors. Some like this flavor, others like that flavor.
If I am a moral being, which I am, I can make any moral judgement I like. But as my post was at pains to say that moral opinions are equivalent absent any laws to the contrary, I really don't see what point you are trying to make here.
No. It is quite simple, sir. When employees are working, they are being paid to do a specific job. They are not being paid to protest. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
The man is paid to play football, he is ready to play football. He is dressed to play football. He has 90 seconds to wait before he is able to play football. So what does he do? He doesn't break the law. He doesn't abuse anyone. He kneel s down and you sack him.
The woman is a cashier. She is ready to work, at her work station, correctly dressed, till is ready. It is 90 seconds before the store opens, so she stands on one leg. And you sack her. If this is the state of employment law in the US, then it isn't surprising that so many employees are so unhappy.
Fine. Why should that entail that we get to force experimental vaccines on people? One persons taking the vaccine, vs. one person not taking the vaccine has no effect on anyone. The vaccine does not prevent transmission, nor illness. It is just meant to prevent serious illness and death. Thus, taking a vaccine has no bearing on someone else or their health.
The vaccine is not experimental. It isn't even just one vaccine. Some have been produced be new methods. All have received exactly the same testing procedures as any other vaccine. The vaccine doesn't prevent, but reduces the chances of infection. It doesn't prevent but reduces the chances of transmission. Millions of lives have been saved by the vaccine, sometimes in the teeth of mindless opposition. I have no time whatsoever for anti-vaxxers. Several children have died because entitled berks have compromised herd immunity on measles, a much more transmissible disease than covid.
Is discrimination morally wrong or morally neutral from your view?
In my view, morally wrong. Other opinions are available.
 
There were times when discrimination was perfectly legal. Do you believe we are more advanced now that we have laws against discrimination? If so, how is that NOT a value judgement on your part?
It is a value judgement on my part. More importantly, the same value judgement has been made by a great many other people, influencing legislators to pass laws.
Actually--people didn't object to inter-racial marriages based on morality. They objected to them-----becasue of the nature of marriage itself: marriage leads to sex which leads to children. Racist objection to inter-racial marriage--was that they didn't want the genes "polluted" in the children.
So what? If a conscience clause is added to discrimination law, the country will be inundated with people with a moral objection to mixed marriage. Some may even be genuine.
The objection to gay marriage is not based on bigotry or hatred. For that matter it isn't even religious in some quarters. The objection to gay marriage is that by definition, it is not marriage. For those who are going to attempt to suggest that we CAN redefine the institution of marriage because marriage is subjective, fine. But then we have no basis to deny an incestual marriage, marriage to an animal, marriage to a tree, polygamy, etc. If your objection is "Oh, please! That is absurd!" Sure it is--but until like---yesterday---gay "marriage" was thought equally absurd.
It doesn't matter what particular individuals think is absurd. Individuals don't make the laws. The laws are made by people who want to be reelected, so they tend to at least listen to public opinion. If public opinion is in favour of same sex marriage and against incest, guess what? Your slippery slope argument has been tried to stop advances in rights for decades. My first ever encounter with a racist was on the top deck of a bus in a small town in England. A fellow passenger saw out of the window a young black female traffic warden. "Good God!" he bellowed" They will be letting them be police officers next! " Most people on the bus agreed with him. It was that sort of town. The point? If public opinion is OK with polygamy, polygamy we will get. At the moment it isn't.
I do not know that people thought inter-racial marriages absurd. Their objection to them, again, was not based on "That is not a marriage" but, in fact, was based on the fact that it WAS a marriage, and given that--they didn't want the gene pool mixed in with blacks who racists saw as subhuman

See--this is what skeptics like you don't seem to get as you sit around with your pinkies in the air at Star Buck's congratulating yourselves on how "enlightened" and "educated" you are because you are good at questioning the assumptions that underlie the arguments people like me make: it destroys your own worldview and arguments too. (I hate Star Bucks coffee. Worst coffee ever. For some reason, however, it tends to be popular with smug liberals. Maybe becasue the chain is West Coast? Hence, my joke about pinkies in the air at Star Bucks.)

You not only undermine my worldview and arguments, you undermine yours as well. If you are going to claim that the only truth that exists is scientific truth, then your views on racism, hatred, bigotry, abortion, etc, are nothing more than matters of opinion and personal taste.
Of course they are just matters of personal taste.
Science taken in and of itself cannot tell us what it means to be a human person subject to rights.
Absolutely true. Science has nothing to say about rights. You are catching on!
Your anti-racism is no better, nor worse than racism. I know darn well that while you understand your position leads to that--you do not personally believe that. The fact is--you believe racists are evil. And that is true--but--you are the relativist, not me. You also believe we pro-lifers want to oppress women--which you believe also evil. Oppression of women is evil, but you are the relativist, not me.
You really don't understand subjective morality at all. It isn't equivalent to no morality. Each person has their own. But we live in a collective society. Anyone whose moral views are markedly at odds with the rest will be ostracised. In effect the prevailing collective moral view becomes the default. But it is subject to change. It is also likely to become enshrined in law and thus become objective.
Here is what I can say:

No Constitutional right is absolute. Rights are always held in tension with other rights. We have religious freedom, but, there are limits to religious freedom when it begins to infringe on another person's rights. How far should religious freedom extend? That is a good question. Should a baker be allowed to refuse to put gay symbols on a cake because speech like that is offensive? If yes, then there are legitimate fears that this could mean someone could refuse to decorate a cake for an inter-racial couple, something no one wants. How do resolve these tensions? As I said--that is for someone smarter than me to answer. I do not know. I can tell you that currently, the SCOTUS has not resolved that specific question. While the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker in 2018, the decision was extremely narrow, ruled more on technicalities than substantive points, etc. Cases are currently making their way through the courts, and perhaps the SCOTUS will rule on the more substantive question. The point being, while the outcome of the SCOTUS decision favored the baker, I am not sure he actually won anything--since the substantive legal issue wasn't resolved. I am not a lawyer so this is a lay person's understanding.
My answer to that question is simple. There are examples of conscience exemptions to all sorts of laws. Here it is illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Unless you are a Sikh. Companies with a no jewellery rule must make an exception for crucifixes. Where such exemptions stop is when they affect other people.
"I have a moral objection to same sex marriage, so I am entitled to discriminate against homosexuals who wish to marry each other." is exactly the same argument as:
"I have a moral objection to witchcraft, so I am entitled to burn witches wherever I find them".

Most people find both viewpoints to be wrong. This includes legislators who make the actions, not the thinking or the moral opinions but the actions, illegal.
I am not aware of any cases like that. But then again, how would a baker know that the person they are decorating the cake for is divorced and remarried--unless they are told? The same for a christening cake for an unmarried couple? But in this scenario---the cake is for the child and celebrating the child's Baptism---not the relationship. Thus, if I were the "Christian" in question, from my standpoint, there would be no reason to refuse to bake the cake.
Ok, I will leave it there.
You must be brilliant at Twister.
Which in the end is always the problem with skeptics. The skeptic thinks they are so intelligent and enlightened, as they sit at Star Bucks with their pinkies in the air and congratulate themselves on being part of the enlightened few and look down upon the unenlightened, uneducated masses, never seeming to get that they prove too much with their skepticism.

The skepticism not only undercuts my arguments, they undercut theirs as well. Skepticism for that reason is incoherent and ultimately self-refuting.

Sadly, as you show here, you misunderstand the nature of my argument and my moral position and the relationship between personal moral opinion and collective law, and the nature of conscience versus harm to others. The problem with the absolutists is that they froth at the mouth at the slightest check, allow their emotions to run away with them and make fools of themselves by not reading what they are railing against. Another problem is a tendency to generalise instead of treating their interlocutor as an individual who actually knows what he thinks and doesn't need to be told what he thinks by someone else making unfounded generalised assumptions, which turn out to be wrong.
 
So marriages for the elderly and infertile should be illegal? Or are you grasping at straws here?

Many same sex marriages include children. They may be adopted (like heterosexual marriage). They may be produced through IVF (like heterosexual marriage) . They may be children from a previous relationship (like heterosexual marriage). They may involve a surrogate (like heterosexual marriage). So your point is?

Indeed.

I don't have to prove anything. The fact is that gay marriage is recognised. The legislature has made that decision, rather than abolish marriage altogether.
I've never seen an argument against gay marriage that isn't

1. an argument against marriage in general, or
2. religious.
 
Which in the end is always the problem with skeptics. The skeptic thinks they are so intelligent and enlightened, as they sit at Star Bucks with their pinkies in the air and congratulate themselves on being part of the enlightened few and look down upon the unenlightened, uneducated masses, never seeming to get that they prove too much with their skepticism.

The skepticism not only undercuts my arguments, they undercut theirs as well. Skepticism for that reason is incoherent and ultimately self-refuting.
Keep going, Temujin merely picks and chooses which posts he thinks he can reply to; and usually ducks out when I refer him to his double standards and hypocrisy
 
Keep going, Temujin merely picks and chooses which posts he thinks he can reply to; and usually ducks out when I refer him to his double standards and hypocrisy
I have explained to you why I tend to ignore your posts but prefer to engage with more substantive posters. If you want me to explain again, I will.
 
The skeptic thinks they are so intelligent and enlightened, as they sit at Star Bucks with their pinkies in the air and congratulate themselves on being part of the enlightened few and look down upon the unenlightened, uneducated masses, never seeming to get that they prove too much with their skepticism.
This is much more an indictment of the non-skeptic than you appear to understand.

I know this because, as a skeptic, you've grossly and hatefully mischaracterized me with the above quote. This mischaracterization looks like an admission that you feel much of what your straw-skeptic thinks: less-intelligent, less-enlightened, less educated.
 
This is much more an indictment of the non-skeptic than you appear to understand.

I know this because, as a skeptic, you've grossly and hatefully mischaracterized me with the above quote. This mischaracterization looks like an admission that you feel much of what your straw-skeptic thinks: less-intelligent, less-enlightened, less educated.
Sorry---I didn't mean to mischaracterize you.

Is there some other coffee shop you and other leftists sit with your pinkies in the air while drinking your mocha latté?
 
I have explained to you why I tend to ignore your posts but prefer to engage with more substantive posters. If you want me to explain again, I will.
You ignore them when they expose your claims as false.
Its no good pretending Temujin. For example the two corresponding anatomies for sexual intimacy and subsequent reproduction means that the individuals skin colour is of no real significance except to a racist. Yet you fail to see the distiniction.
 
I hope you don't consider yourself a true Christian, because true Christians try to avoid sinning on the internet.
Since he has appologised it suggests according to your judgement he is a true Christian. Anyway as a fellow Christian I tell he us, just to put you out of your doubts.
 
I hope you don't consider yourself a true Christian, because true Christians try to avoid sinning on the internet.
If that were the case, and I don't think it is, there would be only three posters on this forum. And two of them would be you and me. 😏
 
You ignore them when they expose your claims as false.
Its no good pretending Temujin. For example the two corresponding anatomies for sexual intimacy and subsequent reproduction means that the individuals skin colour is of no real significance except to a racist. Yet you fail to see the distiniction.
I ignore them because they are so infantile, so childish and so easy to refute, that doing so constantly feels like bullying a small child. It is OK to make you look foolish occasionally, that is good for all of us, including me. But continually battering away at such a paltry target is not only demeaning, but is bad for my mental health. I don't like bullies, and I don't like myself if I spend too much time making you appear like an idiot. I don't think you are a bad person, so better to just leave you to your petty obsessions, your delusions and your fractured logic. I will dip my toe in now and then to see if anything is changed, but for now, I'll leave you to it. After all, it isn't as if your "insights" will persuade anyone of anything other than that your cause is lost.
 
I ignore them because they are so infantile, so childish and so easy to refute, that doing so constantly feels like bullying a small child.
What do you mean by 'they'? There clearly is a distinction. Skin colour doesn't stop people of whatever skin colour, loving each other and supporting each other, but it will stop them having anatomically compatible sexual intimacy and reproducing. That is the significant distinction. ...and there ARE two sexes, and they DO HAVE compatible sexual organs that function together.

This is observable reality and that reality doesn't change because you find it foolish, feel bullied by it, and see it as delusion.
 
I've never seen an argument against gay marriage that isn't

1. an argument against marriage in general, or
2. religious.
I can only assume you haven't talked to many people then.

My argument against gay marriage is simple: by definition it cannot propagate our species. The relationship of one man and one woman is what propagates our species. The reason marriage is important is because of that. You need a stable committed relationship to care for offspring produced as a result of the relationship. This is also why the government would have an interest in being involved in hetero-sexual marriage.

As gay marriage, by definition cannot propagate our species, the government would not have an interest in being involved in it. Gay relationships and commitments are therefore private affairs between consenting adults. Why do gay people care whether the government condones or otherwise gives public recognition to their relationship? Do they need the government to choose someone to love and commit to? No. Does anyone? No.

Consider: do gay couples care what I think about their relationship? No. Nor should they. But why does the same couple, then, care what the government thinks?

Note above in my answer--I appealed to no holy book, god or gods, or religion in my answer.
 
My argument against gay marriage is simple: by definition it cannot propagate our species.
Why should species propagation be the criterion?
As gay marriage, by definition cannot propagate our species, the government would not have an interest in being involved in it.
What harm does it do, though?
Is it somehow detrimental to society if gay marriage is legally recognized?
Gay relationships and commitments are therefore private affairs between consenting adults.
Why aren't straight relationships?
Why do gay people care whether the government condones or otherwise gives public recognition to their relationship?
Maybe they want the legal benefits associated with straight marriage.

After all, why do straight people get married? They want the legal apparatus, and/or they want a nice, formal ceremony to demonstrate their commitment to each other.
Do they need the government to choose someone to love and commit to? No. Does anyone? No.
So this is an argument against marriage in general, as I said.
Consider: do gay couples care what I think about their relationship?
Do straight couples care what you think about their relationship?
But why does the same couple, then, care what the government thinks?
Why does a straight couple care?
Note above in my answer--I appealed to no holy book, god or gods, or religion in my answer.
Indeed.

But besides an arbitrary appeal to procreation - for which marriage is not even necessary - all of your points can be expanded to include marriage as a whole; they are not specific to gay marriage.
 
Why should species propagation be the criterion?
What else is so significant? There are two sexes in the species with corresponding anatomies for sexual intimacy and reproduction. Why should the most significant thing not be the criterion?
 
I can only assume you haven't talked to many people then.

My argument against gay marriage is simple: by definition it cannot propagate our species. The relationship of one man and one woman is what propagates our species. The reason marriage is important is because of that. You need a stable committed relationship to care for offspring produced as a result of the relationship. This is also why the government would have an interest in being involved in hetero-sexual marriage.
Firstly, the planet is short of a great many resources. It is not short of people. Secondly, homosexual marriages are very good for the economy, two productive partners, and they also provide good stable households for adopted children. Homosexual marriages can raise children just as well as heterosexual marriages, whether it be IVF, surrogacy, adoption or the friendly turkey baster. Homosexuals who want children can easily get them. No unwanted children of course, which you surely must welcome.
As gay marriage, by definition cannot propagate our species, the government would not have an interest in being involved in it. Gay relationships and commitments are therefore private affairs between consenting adults. Why do gay people care whether the government condones or otherwise gives public recognition to their relationship? Do they need the government to choose someone to love and commit to? No. Does anyone? No.
Government has other priorities. Married people, even childless ones, live longer, are healthier, mentally and physically, are happier and more productive, all of which benefit the state socially and financially. The days when increasing population have gone, centuries ago. Why have you not adjusted your priorities when the rest of society has?
Consider: do gay couples care what I think about their relationship? No. Nor should they. But why does the same couple, then, care what the government thinks?
They don't. They just want the same rights and respect as any other couple.
Note above in my answer--I appealed to no holy book, god or gods, or religion in my answer.
Jolly good. Do you want a medal?
 
They don't. They just want the same rights and respect as any other couple.
They have the same rights as every other man and woman, what they dont have with same sex coupling is equality, inclusion of diversity, or equal representation of the two sexes
 
They have the same rights as every other man and woman, what they dont have with same sex coupling is equality, inclusion of diversity, or equal representation of the two sexes
Add "couple" to the list of words you don't understand.
 
Back
Top