• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

StillBallin75 said:
That's true. That's what we're doing in this thread after all. Trying to use logic in an attempt to determine whether homosexuality and gay marriage are moral/immoral, depending on which side you're on.
Click to expand...

And my position on that is this: proving that homosexuality is moral/immoral is easy from a relative standpoint, but has zero bearing on the issue of the acceptance of homosexuals from a legal standpoint. That is why I almost never debate morality and go after those who do. Morality has a place in forming your opinions, but no place in PROVING your position.
 
StillBallin75 said:
That's true. That's what we're doing in this thread after all. Trying to use logic in an attempt to determine whether homosexuality and gay marriage are moral/immoral, depending on which side you're on.
Click to expand...

Standard questions to ask someone arguing against homosexuality, gay rights, or gay marriage:

1) Define "normal".
2) Explain the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
3) Name things that heterosexuals CAN do that homosexuals can NOT do.
4) Define the term "disorder".
5) How does homosexuality affect you?
6) What causes someone to be heterosexual? Homosexual?

Few people get past these questions in one piece. Most get tripped up by the first two. I've been doing this debate at DP for nearly 6 years. If you use the guideline questions above, very few folks can really put up a fight.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Standard questions to ask someone arguing against homosexuality, gay rights, or gay marriage:

1) Define "normal".
2) Explain the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
3) Name things that heterosexuals CAN do that homosexuals can NOT do.
4) Define the term "disorder".
5) How does homosexuality affect you?
6) What causes someone to be heterosexual? Homosexual?

Few people get past these questions in one piece. Most get tripped up by the first two. I've been doing this debate at DP for nearly 6 years. If you use the guideline questions above, very few folks can really put up a fight.
Click to expand...

A more relevant point would be to ask them how an abnormal behavior makes it immoral (in other words, wrong, or evil, etc.)
 
StillBallin75 said:
A more relevant point would be to ask them how an abnormal behavior makes it immoral (in other words, wrong, or evil, etc.)
Click to expand...

Nah, I just go after the "normal/abnormal" definition and dismiss any references to morality. They can believe it's immoral all they want. That has no bearing on the global logic surrounding legal actions.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's pretty easy to prove morality to be illogical just by understanding how logical fallacies work. The logic in morality is how one arrives at their OWN moral positions. THAT may be logical, but it is only relatively logical, not globally.
Click to expand...

Let's make sure we aren't confusing social mores with morality, here.
 
Gardener said:
Let's make sure we aren't confusing social mores with morality, here.
Click to expand...

One's individual morality may be arrived at in a logical way... but that logic is entirely relative to that individual. I can demonstrate, from my own moral logic, why pedophiles should be killed... and I bet someone could demonstrate the opposite from their own moral logic. Attempting to use this morality to PROVE that pedophiles should be killed in a logical debate about this would be fraught with logical fallacies.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Standard questions to ask someone arguing against homosexuality, gay rights, or gay marriage:

1) Define "normal".
2) Explain the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.
3) Name things that heterosexuals CAN do that homosexuals can NOT do.
4) Define the term "disorder".
5) How does homosexuality affect you?
6) What causes someone to be heterosexual? Homosexual?

Few people get past these questions in one piece. Most get tripped up by the first two. I've been doing this debate at DP for nearly 6 years. If you use the guideline questions above, very few folks can really put up a fight.
Click to expand...

I'll definitely keep those 6 things in mind, I tried logically going through them in my mind from the oppositions point of view and realized there's no real way to answer all of them without contradicting yourself or realizing your argument makes no sense.
And well, if all else fails, defer to Louis CK

 
mac said:
Actually it's generally theorized that law, religion, etiquette, and morality all overlap to create the societies code of conduct and that none of the four exist independently or can exist without an interdependence.
Click to expand...

So are you really trying to say that you can't have laws without religion? There is no reason for religion to have anything to do with laws in a nation that is secular. Religion has little if any place within our laws because the moment we place religion into our laws, you open up the possibility that a single religious viewpoint could force others by law to not be allowed to practice or you use religion alone to deny rights to others. Rights should only be denied to others when they actually will cause some quantifiable harm (tangible is not the right word, although I know I used it earlier).
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You've gone with the mathematical definition of the "normal/deviant" dichotomy. So, you will agree that both lefthandedness and being Jewish in the US is deviant, correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, so long as you are not implying any negative connotation in the use of the word deviant.
 
theplaydrive said:
Law may have been formed with the influence of religion and morality, but it can certainly exist and be maintained without them.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely and I challenge you to show me how the rule of law can be maintained while ignoring morality and religion.
 
mac said:
I disagree completely and I challenge you to show me how the rule of law can be maintained while ignoring morality and religion.
Click to expand...

Do you think you can have morality without religion?
 
roguenuke said:
So are you really trying to say that you can't have laws without religion? There is no reason for religion to have anything to do with laws in a nation that is secular. Religion has little if any place within our laws because the moment we place religion into our laws, you open up the possibility that a single religious viewpoint could force others by law to not be allowed to practice or you use religion alone to deny rights to others. Rights should only be denied to others when they actually will cause some quantifiable harm (tangible is not the right word, although I know I used it earlier).
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that it has been theorized that they are intermingled to form a society's code of conduct. They mesh together, so to speak. Laws are based on morality which is heavily influenced by religion (including opposition to religion).
 
iamitter said:
Do you think you can have morality without religion?
Click to expand...

I think you can have a form of morality that profess not to rely on religion, but at this point it would be impossible to prove until religion is vanquished from collective memory. But even so, endeavoring to create law irrespective of religion cause the law to be affected by religion.
 
mac said:
I think you can have a form of morality that profess not to rely on religion, but at this point it would be impossible to prove until religion is vanquished from collective memory. But even so, endeavoring to create law irrespective of religion cause the law to be affected by religion.
Click to expand...

Your definition makes law be affected by everything, in effect giving nothing precedence.
Endeavoring to create law irrespective of x makes it be affected by x.
 
mac said:
I disagree completely and I challenge you to show me how the rule of law can be maintained while ignoring morality and religion.
Click to expand...

I choose not to steal, punch or otherwise disobey the law because 1) Empathy 2) Reason 3) Fear of law 4) Desire to contribute to society.

1. It becomes much more difficult to hurt another person when you force yourself to empathize with them. If you develop this habit in children instead of developing the habit of feeling guilty about not living up to morality, this will become a huge guide for their behavior, one that is tied to their own minds and emotions (i.e. undeniable) and much more difficult to ignore than external moral principles (which rely on faith rather than knowledge).

2. Reason - If I hit or kill that person I do so under the assumption that they deserve it or are less than me. However, there is no evidence of that other than my opinion and because opinions are unproven hypotheses, hurting that person would make no sense.

If we instill a habit in children that encourages them to think about the nature and superiority of themselves and their beliefs rather than instilling a set of morals by which to judge and condemn others, then they will realize that the reasons they have for hurting others are ridiculous at their foundation and develop understanding rather than condemnation, or at the very least, become too tired by the end of the thought to do anything.

3. Fear of the law. It already exists and I don't want to go to jail.

4. Contribute to society. I grew up in a family and school system that made me want to contribute to society not only for society's sake, but also because I like the idea of having an impact - really that idea alone is enough to stop me from breaking the law.

Moreover, in many low-income neighborhoods, religion and morality are an even bigger part of society and everyday life than in many wealthy areas (if you go to the Austin area of the West Side of Chicago, a predominately low-income area, there are churches on every corner...there are also drug dealers on every other corner). Lack of obedience to the law is more tied to levels of poverty than it is to the absence of religion/morality.

5. Atheists who were raised in atheist households obey the law all the time because of things within them that they motivate them to do so. One of my good friends is an atheist raised in an atheist household is one of the kindest, most genuine people and by behavioral standards, very 'moral'. She was also an RA in college.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
No, what I'm saying is that it has been theorized that they are intermingled to form a society's code of conduct. They mesh together, so to speak. Laws are based on morality which is heavily influenced by religion (including opposition to religion).
Click to expand...

Morality is simply good or bad conduct. Laws attempt to restrict conduct. Religion is a doctrine that seeks to establish a universal guideline of good and bad conduct.
 
iamitter said:
Your definition makes law be affected by everything, in effect giving nothing precedence.
Endeavoring to create law irrespective of x makes it be affected by x.
Click to expand...

It's not my definition...it's Plato's, backed up by his posse.
 
theplaydrive said:
I choose not to steal, punch or otherwise disobey the law because 1) Empathy 2) Reason 3) Fear of law 4) Desire to contribute to society.

1. It becomes much more difficult to hurt another person when you force yourself to empathize with them. If you develop this habit in children instead of developing the habit of feeling guilty about not living up to morality, this will become a huge guide for their behavior, one that is tied to their own minds and emotions (i.e. undeniable) and much more difficult to ignore than external moral principles (which rely on faith rather than knowledge).

2. Reason - If I hit or kill that person I do so under the assumption that they deserve it or are less than me. However, there is no evidence other than my own opinion and because opinions are unproven hypotheses, hurting that person would make no sense. If we instill a habit in children that encourages to think about the nature and superiority of themselves and their beliefs rather than instilling a set of morals by which to judge and condemn others by, then they will realize that the reasons they have for hurting others are ridiculous at their foundation and develop understanding rather than condemnation, or at the very least, become to tired by the end of the thought to do anything.

3. Fear of the law. It already exists and I don't want to go to jail.

4. Contribute to society. I grew up in a family and school system that made me want to contribute to society not only for society's sake, but also because I like the idea of having an impact - really that alone is enough to stop me from breaking the law screwing that up.

Moreover, Iin many low-income neighborhoods, religion and morality are an even bigger part of society and everyday life than in many wealthy areas (if you go to the Austin area of West Side of Chicago a predominately low-income area, there are churches on every corner...there are also drug dealers on every other corner). Lack of obedience to the law is more tied to levels of poverty than it is to the absence of religion/morality.

5. Atheists who were raised in atheist households obey the law all the time because of things within them that they motivate them to do so. One of my good friends is an atheist raised in an atheist household is one of the kindest, most genuine people and by behavioral standards, very 'moral'. She was also an RA in college.
Click to expand...

1 and 4 are certainly morailty. As to 5, they are obeying a laws that are based on societal morality...in all societies that currently exist, that morality is heavily influenced by religion.
 
mac said:
1 and 4 are certainly morailty. As to 5, they are obeying a laws that are based on societal morality...in all societies that currently exist, that morality is heavily influenced by religion.
Click to expand...

moral    

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.

None of my points have anything to do with right conduct, right/wrong or good/bad. 'Right' is not the issue because right isn't intrinsic to anything I've talked about.

#1 is not morality. It becomes morality when you attach meanings of good/bad, right/wrong to them. With pure empathy, you aren't controlling your behavior because you feel it's right or wrong, good or bad, you're controlling your behavior because you don't want to cause pain since you know what pain feels like. That knowledge is enough. For example, if you insult someone, see the pain on their face and you feel empathy for them, you may want to hug them or apologize because you feel the weight of their emotion, not because of morality. This is what I mean by empathy. It has nothing to do with what's good or bad.

Another example, I won't steal because I know that stealing will hurt the person I'm stealing from as evidenced by the pain/anger I feel imagining it/empathizing. Once you decide that this makes not stealing right is when it becomes moral. Other than that it's just a guide.

edit: you can develop a system of morality based on empathy, but empathy and acting on empathy do not necessitate morality

#4 is not morality either. The desire to contribute to society because it's a good or right thing to do is morality. The desire to contribute to society because you want to have an impact is not (i.e. it's cool to see how my actions can change things). There is nothing moral about this.

#5 I said society no longer needs morality and religion to maintain law and order. I never argued that those laws were not based on morality (in fact, I agreed that they were). Atheists show that religion is not required to obey the law or to have a desire to obey it.

In my opinion, fear of the law is enough to maintain it for most people (most people don't want to go to jail for many practical reasons) and that's definitely not moral.
 
Last edited:
Big Tom said:
If you think its normal to be gay, thats on you. I don't.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly normal for gays to be gay. They don't know what it's like to be straight... and yet, I so rarely hear gays announcing that it's not normal to be straight! :)
 
mac said:
Yes, I agree, so long as you are not implying any negative connotation in the use of the word deviant.
Click to expand...

As long as you also have no negative connotation to deviant, I would agree.

So, based on this definition of deviant, do you think that we should legislate any restrictions on lefthandedness of being Jewish in the US?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom