Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

I'll give you one. Acceptance of gay marriage could lead to acceptance of gay parenting, and I've argued very long that gay parenting is using children as guinea pigs in a social experiment.

Yet again another logical fallacy is presented, this one is.

The Slippery Slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

You should really head over to this website and check out the 24 common logical fallacies.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

[Tisme]

I was thinking of those identical twins used to try to find the fabled genome that causes gayness and it struck me that the half of each pair that was straight might be a little affected by the whole experience; especially under the subsequent pressure of the gay movement to do the right thing and become gay too so genes can continue to be used as an excuse for pity and acceptance.

I was also wondering why gays insist on being accepted without conforming to the established norms, but stampede to archaic hetrosexual customs such as marriage?

No logical fallacies in that because I'm not using black people to illustrate.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yet again another logical fallacy is presented, this one is.



You should really head over to this website and check out the 24 common logical fallacies.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I don't think it's fanciful to conclude that A will lead to B in this case. Give someone an inch and they will want to go further. The gay aim has always been to be seen as "equals" in every respect, but in parenting capability I have argued that they are not.

 

[Value Collector]

And as I have been trying to explain to you, you have no more God given right to decide what is moral than I do, but between 15 million of us we just might be able to get it right. If it doesn't turn out to your satisfaction then you have the rest of your life to try again.

I am not claiming to have a god given right, I have said that we have to try and bring ourselves as close to the moral option as possible with the information we have using reason and logic and passing each option through a series of filters to test if it is a more moral than another option.

there are ways to figure out whether the earth is round or whether the earth is flat, and there are ways to figure out what is the best moral option, neither rely on popular opinion.

I am happy to have a plebiscite, as I said I think we will win, all I am saying is that the outcome of the plebiscite is not what determines if something is true or false or moral or immoral.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't think it's fanciful to conclude that A will lead to B in this case. Give someone an inch and they will want to go further. The gay aim has always been to be seen as "equals" in every respect, but in parenting capability I have argued that they are not.

either way, its a separate topic for a separate debate, denying people their right to do A, because some others might do B is not right, especially if you haven't proven the harm of B in the first place.

 

[Knobby22]

Yet again another logical fallacy is presented, this one is.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Isn't that what you want? isn't that the main purpose of marriage? Wouldn't you say that if that right is not given then society is being immoral?

Pol Pot thought that living in a city corrupted people. His perfect life of living off the fields was considered moral. Religion was immoral. Anyone who disagreed with him was immoral.

Morality is a human construct.

 

[Value Collector]

Isn't that what you want? isn't that the main purpose of marriage?
.

Plenty of infertile couples get married, plenty of married couples never have children.

Wouldn't you say that if that right is not given then society is being immoral?

Potentially, but that is another debate, even if it were found that gays having children was harmful, it still would not be a valid argument to stop them getting married.

Pol Pot thought that living in a city corrupted people. His perfect life of living off the fields was considered moral. Religion was immoral. Anyone who disagreed with him was immoral.

Some people thought the world was flat, sometimes people are just wrong.

A lot of religious teachings are immoral.

Morality is a human construct

I don't think it is, at least not in the way you are implying that it is based on opinion

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think it is, [morality is a human construct] at least not in the way you are implying that it is based on opinion

Well , the only other option is that it's God given and I doubt you believe that.

 

[Tisme]

Here you go VC

a pracftical linkage between black people, homosexuality and child care you can use to promote the cause:



They whipped the 3 yearold with belt buckles, clothes hangers, etc

 

[Knobby22]

I don't think it is, at least not in the way you are implying that it is based on opinion

Well it is. Robert Mugabe would say he is a very moral man

ZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe is no stranger to the moral high ground. Since the anti-colonial struggle and his first decade in office, when most of his speeches concerned themselves with the iniquitous apartheid regime on his southern border, his natural tone has been that of the champion of right against wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mugabes-illfitting-suit-of-moral-outrage-1598214.html

 

[Macquack]

Here you go VC

a pracftical linkage between black people, homosexuality and child care you can use to promote the cause:



They whipped the 3 yearold with belt buckles, clothes hangers, etc

I generally really like your work Tisme, however you have stepped over the line here.

What the f*** has this issue of "gay Marriage" got to do with the COLOUR OF A PERSONS SKIN?

Your underlying prejudice devalues you argument totally.

 

[Value Collector]

Well , the only other option is that it's God given and I doubt you believe that.

Why would the only other option be a god?

When I say it's not a human construct, I mean it's not something that is based on the opinions of humans, it doesn't change based on popular votes or the opinion of a dictator. In any given situation there is an option which would be the most moral path, and other options that would be less moral, and this exists whether or not humans had discovered the concept of morality yet, it would exist if you replaced the human in the scenario with a chimp or an alien race.

 

[Value Collector]

Well it is. Robert Mugabe would say he is a very moral man

ZIMBABWE'S President Robert Mugabe is no stranger to the moral high ground. Since the anti-colonial struggle and his first decade in office, when most of his speeches concerned themselves with the iniquitous apartheid regime on his southern border, his natural tone has been that of the champion of right against wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/mugabes-illfitting-suit-of-moral-outrage-1598214.html

Are you saying what is moral changes based on who is in power or on human opinion? If that's what you are trying to say I think you are wrong.

What Mugabe believes is moral, doesn't change what actually is moral, I believe he could have sincere beliefs that the things he does is moral, but if those actions fail certain tests, then they aren't moral.

 

[luutzu]

Why would the only other option be a god?

When I say it's not a human construct, I mean it's not something that is based on the opinions of humans, it doesn't change based on popular votes or the opinion of a dictator. In any given situation there is an option which would be the most moral path, and other options that would be less moral, and this exists whether or not humans had discovered the concept of morality yet, it would exist if you replaced the human in the scenario with a chimp or an alien race.

Yea, true. But the problem is people always think their beliefs are moral and just. And those with the bigger sticks tend to have their way

I think most people are moral, even the immoral ones... just their definition of those they prejudiced against are somewhat skewed (screwed?).

So take this thing against gay marriage. All those against or unhappy with gays getting married or having children tend to do so because they do not see homosexual as equal, as the same as themselves or their fellow heterosexuals. That heterosexuals can get marry, can certainly have children if they wanted or could physically regardless of their mental or financial or other means... gays? well gays can't, shouldn't... why? Because they are not as equal or not as good as heterosexual.

Like how the Blacks (then the Coloured) were literally defined as 2/3 equal to White Americans. Or how Jews and non-MasterRace were not... not the master race... Once people buy into those definition, dehumanises another group... what they then do or permitted to be done is all very normal and very rational and moral - to them anyway.

So are homosexual equal, are just as good or as bad as the best of the heterosexuals?

 

[SirRumpole]

Why would the only other option be a god?

When I say it's not a human construct, I mean it's not something that is based on the opinions of humans, it doesn't change based on popular votes or the opinion of a dictator. In any given situation there is an option which would be the most moral path, and other options that would be less moral, and this exists whether or not humans had discovered the concept of morality yet, it would exist if you replaced the human in the scenario with a chimp or an alien race.

Humans define what the term "morality" means, therefore it's a human construct. An alien race may define "morality" in a different way, or not at all.

If you are talking about a "universal" morality then it has to be defined by something universal, which means a God, if one exists but until we know what that Being wants (some believe they do), then we have to stick to our own definition, which means our individual definitions or the definition as applied in law; eg if abortions are legal then they are by definition "moral" as society sees them, even though abortions are not moral to some individuals.

 

[Tisme]

What the f*** has this issue of "gay Marriage" got to do with the COLOUR OF A PERSONS SKIN?

Exactly Macca


Glad you agree because that is my objection to VC's constant referral to blacks as cause for homosexual marriage tolerance. It demeans Blacks IMO and I happen to like a lot of black people....so perhaps you might like to revise your attack on me and place it on someone who is the real racist culprit.

And before any of you lot decide I don't like homosexuals that is is also a "logical fallacy" ... I like the people I meet probably universally, however I'm not so tribal as to think belonging to an interest group automatically lumps you in with the best of them.....e.g. WA bogans in Bali = God help us all.

PS I didn't beat a 3 year old to death and I would protest that two times raging female hormones looking after a tantrum prone child doesn't allow the counter balance of male hormone to modify behaviours of the carers..

 

[Knobby22]

Are you saying what is moral changes based on who is in power or on human opinion? If that's what you are trying to say I think you are wrong.

What Mugabe believes is moral, doesn't change what actually is moral, I believe he could have sincere beliefs that the things he does is moral, but if those actions fail certain tests, then they aren't moral.

So define morality then.
Use abortion as an example. I think you will find it quite hard.

 

[Value Collector]

So define morality then.
.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad.

Firstly, I don't believe in moral absolutes, like some Religious people claim, and I don't claim to know what the 100% moral action is in every given instance, as I said its just our job to try and make the best moral decisions we can, based on the information we have, and using certain moral filters.

A religious person might claim a moral absolute that it is 100% immoral to kill a human, However I believe there are situations where killing a human may be moral, eg ending the pain of a suffering cancer patient.

Use abortion as an example. I think you will find it quite hard

Again, there are no absolutes here either, there are situations where it is immoral and other situations where it is fine, and many situations that require a lot of debate and rational reasoned thought onto what is the best way to apply the moral principles.

 

[Value Collector]

Humans define what the term "morality" means, therefore it's a human construct. An alien race may define "morality" in a different way, or not at all.

.

Humans also define what the word gravity means, is gravity a Human construct.

If you are talking about a "universal" morality then it has to be defined by something universal, which means a God, if one exists but until we know what that Being wants (some believe they do), then we have to stick to our own definition, which means our individual definitions or the definition as applied in law;

Gravity is universal, do we need a god to define that?

eg if abortions are legal then they are by definition "moral" as society sees them, even though abortions are not moral to some individuals

Not at all, a law can be immoral, slavery wasn't moral when it was legal.

 

[Value Collector]

Yea, true. But the problem is people always think their beliefs are moral and just. And those with the bigger sticks tend to have their way

I think most people are moral, even the immoral ones... just their definition of those they prejudiced against are somewhat skewed (screwed?).

I agree, a lot of other wise good people, end up committing immoral acts, because in their quest to do good, they base their actions on incorrect teachings, their concepts of what is good and bad can be tainted by things such as religion.

I actually don't think the people that flew the planes into the trade centres were evil, I think they were probably decent people doing what they thought was the right thing to do based on their faith, unfortunately for them and their victims, their faith lead them to commit an act of gross immorality.

Its like any formula, when you put garbage in you get garbage out, when you put religious nonsense into your calculations for your moral actions, you are going to get garbage results.