Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson  Who says it's "morally wrong"? You? And on what basis do you make that judgment? |
Yes, I say it is morally wrong. I explained that if we don't vote based on the issues, someone with the wrong stance on the issues may be elected. This affects others negatively. Affecting others negatively is immoral.
Quote:
|
And how in Sam Hill do you come to the conclusion that people who are voting against gays are doing so because of a "desire to punish gay peoople"? That is a blind judgment that is typical of one-sided arguments - most often engaged in by "tolerant" liberals.
|
If this is not the reason, then what is the reason?
Quote:
|
Saying that homosexuality is wrong is NO DIFFERENT MORALLY than saying that abortion is wrong. And could it be - just COULD it be - that anti-abortionists are actually concerned about saving the lives of unborn children, rather than supposedly supressing the rights of women?
|
I believe almost every person opposed to abortion is concerned with saving the lives of unborn children. I do not see where you are going with this.
Quote:
|
The exact same thing could, and is, said about people who vote against homosexuality on moral grounds. They are seeking to either establish, or maintain, the "best set of laws".
|
It can only be said if they are voting based on the candidate's stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. It cannot be said if they are voting based on the candidate's sexual orientation.
Quote:
|
In other words, you are making a moral judgment against that man, based on what YOU believe to be moral or immoral. This is, by the way, EXACTLY what you are angry toward other people for doing.
|
If a candidate supported legalizing marriage between adults and minors, I would judge that candidate's stance on the issues to be the wrong one, and I would vote against that candidate. This would not have anything to do with that candidate's own marriage.
Quote:
|
Thank you for your confession. So you're a party-line, straight-run voter.
|
I do not understand where you get this idea. I vote for Republicans occasionally, and I am very likely to vote for Independant, Libertarian and Green party candidates. It depends on the candidate's stance on the issues, as I stated.
Quote:
|
What about the fact that if Clinton will lie under oath about sex, it's almost inevitable that he'll lie about any and everything else?
|
This is a good point, and under different circumstances, I might take it into consideration. But because I can understand why this lie was told, and because I do not believe this lie caused any harm, I do not find it evidence that Clinton would lie about more important information.
Quote:
|
EVERY law in EVERY country legislates some moral of some kind. It's merely a fact.
|
You are right, but the more a government legislates morality, the more tyrannical it is. Good government decides as little morality as possible, assuming that nothing should be banned unless it harms someone else.
Quote:
|
And by the way, our government is NOT based on freedom. It is far more accurate to say "freedom within reasonable limits".
|
I understand what you are saying. I like to say "freedom, so long as that freedom doesn't harm someone else."
Quote:
YOU have decided that homosexuality is perfectly fine.
YOU have decided that anybody who disagrees with you is a sinner "of the worst kind".
I will GUARANTEE you that you have come by this belief through logic. Logic dictates that homosexuality is un-natural and is an abberation of the natural order of things. It cannot be self-sustaining, nor reproducing. Therefore, you have NOT come to this belief through logic. You have arrived at it because it's what you WANT to believe.
|
This is the most important thing you have said, for it actually talks about
why you find homosexuality immoral.
In response, I say that whether an action is self-sustaining and reproducing has nothing to do with its morality. For example, playing football is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Typing on my keyboard is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Watching cartoons is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Sacrificing my life to save someone else's actually prevents me from ever reproducing, yet it is still moral.
On the other hand, rape is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral. Having sex with minors is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral. Having loads of sex before marriage is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral.
My conclusion is that whether something is self-sustaining and reproducing has nothing to do with whether it is moral. Instead, morality is based on helping make others happy.
I should also mention that homosexuality, due to the nature of love, may encourage some people to have and raise children through one of a variety of methods, such as adoption, surrogate parenting, or artificial insemination. Because of this, homosexuality can be considered at least a method of encouraging reproduction.
Quote:
|
What if my beliefs are that every homosexual should be killed? Or that every pro-abortionist and abortion provider should be killed, in order to help society become a more moral entity. Do you take the "live and let live" approach to that? Of course you don't. You ONLY apply the "live and let live" morality too people and beliefs YOU agree with.
|
"Let live" is really the most important part of "Live and Let Live." Don't interfere negatively in someone else's life, and that includes not killing them.