Can Social Acceptance Encourage Immorality?

Guard Dad said:
Waski - I understand your concerns over "mob rule", but we have checks and balances in our system of government that eventually correct wrongs such as interracial marriage being illegal or slavery to go back even further.

But what are our other options? Using religion as a moral compass is not popular anymore. Letting government decide everything for us is pretty scary and potentially disastrous. Potentially even tyrannical if we allow it to go unchecked.

Regarding the issue of legality, I think that to some degree the majority must decide it, but through our system of representation in government. It's not perfect but it has some safeguards built it.
Click to expand...

My morals are based on harm to others. Stealing, for example, harms others. Marrying someone with a different color skin harms no one even if it gives some neanderthals the willies. Where is the harm if two men or two women marry?

I don't like religion as a moral compass because all the holy books have some pretty awful stuff in them. Also, this is not a theocracy, and there is certainly a bit of question on which religion should be followed or whether there even is any supernatural power.

As for laws: if we focus on harm to others, it's a lot easier to write laws. The idea of being intimate with someone of the same gender may give people who prefer the opposite gender the willies, but that doesn't mean homosexuality should be illegal. And I don't see a reason to make same-sex marriage illegal either. I actually have no problem with more complicated marriages either. I draw the line at incest, but my reasons are based on science (danger to the potential offspring) and the power differential in cases of a parent and child. We all know that even as independent adults, our parents exert a huge influence over us.

So, Jesus had it right in Matthew 7:12 when he said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." He wasn't the first or the last to articulate this principle.

My problem with the marriage issue is that if we don't accept or reject marriages across the nation, all I have to do is cross state lines and maybe my African wife is no longer my wife? Or maybe my Polish husband is no longer my husband? I have a big problem with that because of all the things that go along with marriage: not just the tax stuff but things like medical care, decision making, protection in court, and so on. Before the decision happened I was a lot more conservative on the issue, but even then I was saying that it needs to be the same nationwide. What turned me over the edge on this issue was asking myself who gay marriage harms. I couldn't answer that.

And, it's important to remember that our laws need to protect the minority.
 
Waski_the_Squirrel said:
My morals are based on harm to others. Stealing, for example, harms others. Marrying someone with a different color skin harms no one even if it gives some neanderthals the willies. Where is the harm if two men or two women marry?

I don't like religion as a moral compass because all the holy books have some pretty awful stuff in them. Also, this is not a theocracy, and there is certainly a bit of question on which religion should be followed or whether there even is any supernatural power.

As for laws: if we focus on harm to others, it's a lot easier to write laws. The idea of being intimate with someone of the same gender may give people who prefer the opposite gender the willies, but that doesn't mean homosexuality should be illegal. And I don't see a reason to make same-sex marriage illegal either. I actually have no problem with more complicated marriages either. I draw the line at incest, but my reasons are based on science (danger to the potential offspring) and the power differential in cases of a parent and child. We all know that even as independent adults, our parents exert a huge influence over us.

So, Jesus had it right in Matthew 7:12 when he said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." He wasn't the first or the last to articulate this principle.

My problem with the marriage issue is that if we don't accept or reject marriages across the nation, all I have to do is cross state lines and maybe my African wife is no longer my wife? Or maybe my Polish husband is no longer my husband? I have a big problem with that because of all the things that go along with marriage: not just the tax stuff but things like medical care, decision making, protection in court, and so on. Before the decision happened I was a lot more conservative on the issue, but even then I was saying that it needs to be the same nationwide. What turned me over the edge on this issue was asking myself who gay marriage harms. I couldn't answer that.

And, it's important to remember that our laws need to protect the minority.
Click to expand...

Not all laws are to protect people. Some laws are to encourage certain behaviors or societal direction. EX: marriage laws were to encourage stability of family, and the perks that go with marriage were added to further encourage things like having children. The protection of "marital" property could be handled through a civil union.

We have laws to make us pay taxes. I could make a case that some of those laws harm me. Can we repeal them now?

The racial issue in this country is and was a direct result of another mistake we made; slavery. So while the examples you and others made of interracial marriage are valid in some respects; they really don't parallel issues such as same-sex marriage or transgender restrooms.

Regarding laws that protect people...I see a huge potential for the transgender restroom issue to cause damage to us. If you count things like men claiming to identify as women just to get into a woman's locker room and take videos of naked girls as damage (and I think it is; then it already has caused damage and I can make a case that we need protection from people going into restrooms meant for the opposite sex.

It's harder to say that same-sex marriage will harm people because on the surface it probably doesn't. But is it possible that it will do damage to the fabric of our society over time? I'm not sure any of us really know the answer to that question, but the possibility shouldn't be dismissed.

I agree with you regarding the harm done by the science of incest. But does harm come from bestiality? It's biologically impossible for a man and a sheep (sorry for the visual) to procreate, so why is it illegal? Where is the harm? Food for thought...

And who defines "harm"?

Fact is...most of our moral principles originated in religion. That doesn't mean we're a theocracy, because we're not. But Judaeo-Christian values are what our original laws were based on. And it was a good choice. Interesting that you first say you don't like using religion as a moral compass, then you quote Jesus in another paragraph and say that he had it right. So you seem to be conflicting with yourself on that one.
 
jenilyn said:
Bestiality harms animals.
Click to expand...
And they can not give consent.

That is a main reason why many that are not bothered by same sex marriage give no credit to those that try to draw a parallel between them. Even when they try to say they are not and just using that as a sexual example, people stop listening. If someone wants to make a point that they say is, just trying to be consistent, they should use points that are. Homosexual marriage, sex outside of wedlock, more than one wife, I can see using those examples. Bestiality and pedophilia that both involve one party that can not consent makes the whole argument void. That is rape.

If the person wants a real discussion don't bring things into the discussion that are obviously just to stir the pot. It only shuts down conversations. (One reason people will just stop responding. It is not the stance, it is the outrageous comparisons made that make people think that it is just not worth the time and effort to even type a response.) JMO Agree or not that is just what I have come to observe over many years in this and other forums.

**disclaimer: this is general you's and they's and obviously not jenilyn. :D
 
Animals must give consent?

I guess we should stop using dogs for police or seeing eye duty too then. Some of them might not be consenting.

Dog lives matter!
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that animals should have the same rights as humans but they definitely have the right to not be abused.
 
Guard Dad said:
Well, no. I'm an animal lover too, and I'm certainly not condoning neastiality. But to infer that animals have rights like humans is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Sex is consensual or not. If one can not give consent then it is rape. Who is okay with raping an animal? That is abuse and what other word would you like used if you find consent goofy?No one said that the animal has the same rights as us, but our right to have sex does not mean we can abuse a person or animal.
 
ShoeDiva said:
Sex is consensual or not. If one can not give consent then it is rape. Who is okay with raping an animal? That is abuse and what other word would you like used if you find consent goofy?No one said that the animal has the same rights as us, but our right to have sex does not mean we can abuse a person or animal.
Click to expand...
Point is that an animal is not capable of giving consent for anything. That's why your comment does not appy.

So why is it ok to spay or nueter an animal without consent?

And once again, I am not saying beastiality is alright. Just making a point.
 
Guard Dad said:
Point is that an animal is not capable of giving consent for anything. That's why your comment does not appy.

So why is it ok to spay or nueter an animal without consent?

And once again, I am not saying beastiality is alright. Just making a point.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if the animal didn't bite the person, it's because they gave consent.
 
But what if someone was born as an animal and truly loves the person? Don't laugh, it's not far from being a legitimate argument. Also, if we're going to say "Let adults love who they want" then incest falls squarely into that category. If two of the same gender can marry each other then surely two consenting related adults should have the same opportunity. The flood gates are now open for any an all whether or not it's socially acceptable.
 
Last edited:
I ran across this article posted in another political forum. I've read several other opinions similar to this in some articles and some studies I've done at church over the years.

While the headline singles out homosexuality; it was sexual perversion in general and a feminization (did I spell that right?) of men that played a major factor in the Roman Empire's fall. If you think about it, you might find some parallels to where our culture is heading.

Please note that this is not a conservative or religious publication. It's an Italian historian and the article is carried in a British publication.

I encourage everyone to read it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html
 
That would not have been an article I would have recommended to make a point. JMO

This thread is still going....says a lot.
 
ShoeDiva said:
That would not have been an article I would have recommended to make a point. JMO
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why, unless it's not not politically correct for mainstream opinion.

But there's plenty about the topic on the web for anyone who's mind is open enough to consider historical fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top