Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,948
- Reactions
- 7,038
Well said.
Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.
If you are saying that morality depends to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.
It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority. The basis of how we assess "rights" and "good" are obviously movable and will vary from individual to individual, which is why we have to discuss the issue as a group and not take the words of a small number of people as gospel.
Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election.
That's where you are wrong.
What is moral to you may not be moral to someone else, simple as that.
Probably true, but we aren't living 100 years from now.
.
If you are saying that morality depends to an extent on knowledge about causes and effects then I agree, however that's not all there is, morality also depends on factors we consider more important to us individually and as a society.
It MAY be more important to infringe on the rights of a minority for the good of the majority
Hence, in relation to the subject matter of this thread, a plebiscite is a better way of deciding the issue of gay marriage than a vote of a smaller group of people, especially those who have been badgered by lobbyists from both sides or who are worried about their jobs after the next election
But, please answer this, what a plebiscite have been the best method to end slavery in the southern states of the US, what actions you take if the plebiscite agreed to keep slavery?
Yes, if it can be shown that allowing the minority to take a certain action causes harm to the majority, But that's why I have been asking people to show me how allowing a gay couple to marry cause harm to anyone, so far no one has been able to show harm.
No, please don't go on about slavery, we both agree that morality changes over time, that was then and this is now, there is no comparison.
.
I gave you a reason regarding gay parenting which you chose to dismiss
. I don't agree with your reasons for dismissing my claim. In another thread I posted a survey that shows that Norway is divided over gay parenting even though they have gay marriage, therefore this proposal could cause divisions in society.
You can dismiss that if you like, but I feel that you are so "rusted on" to your cause that you will therefore not listen to any arguments to the contrary. The wider public may agree with you or me, we will see
Slavery is still seen as moral by some.
OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.
, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?
OMG, I may as well stop talking, As I have said repeatedly, morality doesn't change. Slavery wasn't moral then either, just certain peoples moral systems were flawed due to bad information and phony logic.
Sigh. We aren't living in Alabama in the 1800's what happened then is irrelevant to today.
SOMEBODY has to decide about Gay Marriage in LAW.
Whether or not the result conforms to your idea of what is "truly moral" is irrelevant, the point is that a vote of the whole population is better than a vote of a minority. Are you arguing that ?
To use your own logic.
A system is moral if the well being of the most number of thinking beings is maximised, correct ?
So if a small number of slaves enhance the well being of a large number of people, that would be a moral system ?
But it's not irrelevant. We can't simply let the majority oppresses the minority and call it moral because the majority said so.
It's never as simple as greatest good for the greatest number, any attempt to put slavery into that camp would give a false result, pretty much the only reason to restrict a persons freedom is to prevent real harm to others, you can't just take some ones freedom for profit.
Eric Abetz would agree with you 100%.
I think that answer demonstrates the folly of trying to make hard and fast rules that suit every purpose at every time.
There are too many ifs and buts. Sure, some rules are fine but there are usually extenuating circumstances that intervene.
How would you balance the "rights" of a mother wanting an abortion with the "rights" of the child to survive in terms of restricting one person's freedom in order to prevent harm to others ?
Come on SirRumpole, you can't really use morality as the basis of your argument when your argument is to discriminate against an entire section of the community.
I mean you can try and make a case that it's bad for the children or bad for society or it goes against your belief and value system... and I am sure you're morally a decent person, but this stance is not moral, can't be argued on such ground.
So yea, some gays are bad people; some gay parents will harm children... but not all gays are bad, not all gay parents are harmful... and if they are harmful or bad, their homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Just as some straight or some White or coloured folks are bad and make bad parents... Unless you can prove otherwise, no leg to stand on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?