|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 12:55:19 GMT -5
Haha, I'm really not trying to be facetious or antagonistic... but I thought it would be interesting to see how hets would respond to the same questions that were posed by Jesse in the "Questions for the homosexuals" thread.
I have a few questions for the heterosexuals. Actually, I suppose I'd like to question your morality.
On what grounds do you justify heterosexuality?
Do you believe in heterosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage?
What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality?
If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it?
Also, have you ever tried to change your orientation? If not, why do you condemn LGBTs for also accepting and loving themselves as they are?
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 9, 2006 14:18:12 GMT -5
I have a few questions for the heterosexuals. Actually, I suppose I'd like to question your morality.
On what grounds do you justify heterosexuality?
Do you believe in heterosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage?
What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality?
If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it?Also, have you ever tried to change your orientation? If not, why do you condemn LGBTs for also accepting and loving themselves as they are? I don't "justify" any part of my sexuality. Not sure I understand this question. I don't believe ANY sex before marriage is OK, including heterosexual sex. All of it is immoral. Kiddie porn and beastiality are both demonic in nature and seek to destroy the lives and minds of those involved. I (Juli) don't condemn it, God's Truth and His Word do. If you have issue with that, take it up with HIM. I have never tried to change orientation. I am not attracted to women, and never have been. But had I ever been in the past, I would certainly seek NOT to be homosexual now that I know the truth. Again, I don't condemn anyone, by man's own actions is his condemned. But I won't preach a compromising message to anyone just ot make them "feel better" about themselves. That is a sure way to end up in hell.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 9, 2006 16:31:35 GMT -5
I consider myself not really a sexual person in general, but I'll answer this because I'm more heterosexual than homosexual and because Morluna has a great thread idea. On what grounds do you justify heterosexuality? Do you believe in heterosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage? What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality? If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it? [/b] Also, have you ever tried to change your orientation? If not, why do you condemn LGBTs for also accepting and loving themselves as they are?[/quote] 1. I justify it because I believe that you may do anything you please, provided that you violate no one else's rights. A consensual, sexual relationship between a male and a female does not harm me in the least and is therefore A-Okay with me. Carry on, ladies and gentlemen! 2. Well, this is complicated. I don't really believe in marriage--I think the government is way too tied to religion and that a more secular process would benefit everyone, of all faiths. A religious ceremony would personally offend me and I would not want that for myself. However, I do believe that, for me, monogamy is the only option. Multiple, simultaneous partners simply does not appeal to me. As for sex, again, this is for me personally--I have psychological hangups about it and see it as highly unlikely that this will ever be an issue, but I do think that if I were to consider sex, I would like it to be with only one person. But that's what works for me. For others, if informed consent is obtained from all parties involved and no one's rights are being violated...have fun! Just...don't tell me the details, okay? ;D 3. What does this have to do with sexuality? Those are heinous crimes that I would never condone under any circumstances. 4. Condemn which? The issues addressed in question #3? Of course I condemn them! An animal or a child cannot give informed consent. This is a violation of rights and is therefore not okay at all. The end, bye-bye, see you later. EDIT: Missed one! No, I have never tried to change my sexuality. I've never thought much about it--because who I am attracted to is not something I can control. I let things happen the way they're going to happen, keeping an open mind and always making responsible decisions that I can live with at the end of the day. I don't condemn LGBTs...though I try not to label since you usually can't. I'm not an {anything}-sexual. I'm a person. Just trying to do the right thing and do my best. That's all any of us can do.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 16:35:34 GMT -5
God's Word, the bible.
After.
Those into it are some pretty sick puppies.
BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE
Who gave you the authority to say "anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt anyone". It sounds to me like you are making up your own principle for morality and then are forcing it on everyone else. Do you claim to be autonomous?
What makes you say that you can do as you please sexually so long as you don't hurt anyone?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 9, 2006 16:40:58 GMT -5
Who gave you the authority to say "anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt anyone". It sounds to me like you are making up your own principle for morality and then are forcing it on everyone else. What makes you say that you can do as you please sexually so long as you don't hurt anyone? Who gave you the authority to insist that everyone follow the teachings of a book which some do not believe? I think your Bible is fiction. I don't care what it says. Sounds to me like you are forcing your principles for morality on everyone else. Maybe when you stop, I'll stop.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 16:44:04 GMT -5
Well said Valentine. I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 17:02:33 GMT -5
God has given me the authority to go and spread His word. I do not claim to be autonomous.
My ultimate presupposition is the Word of God. God's Word must be obeyed because it is God's Word. His Word is the ONLY presupposition which is not arbitrary, which is self-attesting and self-authorizing.
Apparently your ultimate presuppostion, like Morluna, is yourself! You are saying that what you say is true because you are saying it. This is being autonomous. I do not claim to have the authority to dictate morality on everyone else. I am saying only God has the authority to dictate morality, and so I spread God's established moral code and not my own personal likes and dislikes. . However you are showing by your actions and words on these boards that you think you do have the authority to dictate morality on everyone else.
So you said it yourself, it doesn't matter what the bible says you will always believe it is fiction. That is because you have a sinful bias. You don't want to believe Gods's Word because it requires that you submit to it. You would rather go to a far extreme of absurdity in your world-view, to even say you are autonomous, rather then to simply acknowledge and obey God's Word.
I travel full-time spreading God's Word. I do what I believe and I believe in what I do. I simply wanted to point out that you are forcing your principle of ethics on others. That cannot be denied. The question is, do you believe in forcing your ethical beliefs on others?
I do what I believe so I am consistent. I believe in God's Word of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and so spread that message.
If you say you don't believe in forcing your ethics on others and yet you are forcing your ethic principle of "so long as it doesn't hurt anyone" on others, then you are a hypocrite, being inconsistent with your own views.
Now, to restate my questions I would highly appreciate an answer:
One other question, if you can do anything so long as it doesn't hurt someone else, do you condemn homosexual sex because it must hurt?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 17:35:58 GMT -5
One other question, if you can do anything so long as it doesn't hurt someone else, do you condemn homosexual sex because it must hurt? Do YOU think it hurts? And if so, how do you know? Did Miles cry last night? ;D *LAFF* Okay, okay that was uncalled for... but I still think you guys are all suppressing your homosexual tendancies. I imagine it gets lonely in that van for days at a time with no womenfolk around. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 17:38:23 GMT -5
There are plenty of things I have never done that I know hurt. I have never been run over by a car, but I bet it hurts! I have never had my arm chopped off, but I know it hurts. God has given me a working brain that thinks logically and reasonably.
But the question still stands, does the principle "so long as it doesn't hurt anyone" exclude homosexual sex from being moral, since it hurts? Or is this principle not really a good ethical test to judge our moral decisions?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 17:50:22 GMT -5
There are plenty of things I have never done that I know hurt. I have never been run over by a car, but I bet it hurts! I have never had my arm chopped off, but I know it hurts. God has given me a working brain that thinks logically and reasonably. I've had my arm chopped off, and I can attest that it does indeed hurt quite a lot. And MY question still stands, how do you know it hurts if you haven't done it? In addition, are you aware that not all homosexual male couples choose to engage in anal intercourse? Some just don't like it, straight up. And as you can see here, some couples enjoy a lovey nuzzle now and then. Awww, aren't they the cutest? But to answer your question... Heterosexual sex is somewhat painful for most women the first time. For others it is very painful... and for some it is not painful at all. This varies from couple to couple, and depends on p-e-n-i-s (OMG I can't BELIEVE I can't say that on this board. They're body parts people, not curse words!!! Geez...) size/v-a-g-i-n-a (GRRRR) size as well as the amount of time and patience that is given to the act, and also whether the woman is relaxed or tense. For homosexual (male) couples, I have heard testimonies that indicate it is somewhat more difficult the first time in comparison with the discomfort experienced by a woman having heterosexual intercourse the first time, and this makes sense because the anus is a tighter and more contracted orifice than the v-a-g-i-n-a generally is. But most guys tell me that after the first couple of times it becomes easier and this discomfort goes away. Same with het. women. A little bit of pain is part of entering sexuality. That's just how it is. (well, except for heterosexual males apparently... NO FAIR! Lol) But sex is just like anything else. It takes practice and patience, and you get better at it with time and experience. At least that's what they tell me, the poor forsaken virgin... le sigh. BUT! My main point is, when Valentine said that she judges morality on whether something she says or does is hurtful to others, I imagine her more specific meaning was that she judges morality on whether something is hurtful and unwanted by another. A little discomfort that a willing and loving partner is happy to endure is not the same thing as unwarranted, hateful cruelty against a hapless and unwilling victim.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 9, 2006 17:58:29 GMT -5
God has given me the authority to go and spread His word. I do not claim to be autonomous. My ultimate presupposition is the Word of God. God's Word must be obeyed because it is God's Word. His Word is the ONLY presupposition which is not arbitrary, which is self-attesting and self-authorizing. Now Jesse, I love you, really I do--but I'm getting tired of hearing the same thing over and over from you. Yes, I know that you think your god is the ultimate authority, the Bible divinely inspired by him and your personal interpretation of said Bible infallible. I don't believe that this is true, and saying it over and over won't make me believe it. Apparently your ultimate presuppostion, like Morluna, is yourself! You are saying that what you say is true because you are saying it. This is being autonomous. Sure is. Got a problem? I do not claim to have the authority to dictate morality on everyone else. I am saying only God has the authority to dictate morality, and so I spread God's established moral code and not my own personal likes and dislikes. . However you are showing by your actions and words on these boards that you think you do have the authority to dictate morality on everyone else. When did I say that? In arguing against you I'm dictating your beliefs? Or is it the fact that I think it's wrong to give someone else permission to violate others' rights, as you wish to do? So you said it yourself, it doesn't matter what the bible says you will always believe it is fiction. That is because you have a sinful bias. You don't want to believe Gods's Word because it requires that you submit to it. You would rather go to a far extreme of absurdity in your world-view, to even say you are autonomous, rather then to simply acknowledge and obey God's Word. That is your opinion, and an entirely ignorant statement which I will not dignify with a response. You know nothing about me and what causes me to not believe in your religion. I'm heavily offended. Now, to restate my questions I would highly appreciate an answer: This is to address all of the "forcing my ethical principles on others" nonsense. Since you don't seem to understand, I will try to explain this to you: I take a leaf from the Hippocrates Oath: do no harm. Do I think you have the right to believe that homosexuals are condemned to hell? Absolutely. Do you have the right to take their rights away because of this? No. And the government will back me up on this one, I think. Believe that I am going to hell. But you do not have the right to, for example, hold me captive and force me to read the Bible (am not saying you would do this--hypothetical argument). That is what I mean by saying that no one has the right to violate another's rights. If you're incapable of seeing that, then you have bigger problems than this mere psychology student can tackle. I suspect that you will still fail to understand this because you believe that you have the right to violate others' rights as long as you deem them "sinful"--but I tried. Now this...really makes me laugh. One other question, if you can do anything so long as it doesn't hurt someone else, do you condemn homosexual sex because it must hurt? Well. After I stopped laughing at Morluna's answer to this (which is infinitely more exciting than mine), I managed to formulate this response: You are both ignorant and incorrect. News flash: heterosexual intercourse hurts the first time as well, for females. As a virgin, I cannot say from firsthand experience any more than I believe you can (if I've mixed you up with someone, I apologize and stand ready to be corrected on this point), but I personally find it very difficult to believe that one would willfully persist in doing something that one found unpleasant. Your fear of all things homosexual is causing you to make profoundly misguided statements, my friend. By the way, for the sake of argument, you've also misconstrued my meaning of the word "hurt." If you decide to break Miles's arm, and he consents to you doing that with full knowledge/understanding of what you are going to do--be my guest! I did not mean that causing physical pain is not permissable: only when said pain is not consented to. I find it laughable that you would think I would make such a childish statement.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 17:59:44 GMT -5
I know it hurts because God has given me a logical and reasonable mind. But ultimately, I guess I simply assume it hurts.
Why? Because it hurts! So can you really say, "do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone"?
If you are to stay true to your ethical principle, you would have to condemn this type of sex. If you choose to change your ethical principle, you show that you are bending and manipulating your moral code to fit something you are already presupposing is ok.
I do not make moral principles based on what I like or what I don't like. Rather I simply acknowledge that God has given us a universal code of conduct, and therefore sin is universal, and judgment will be universal. So all must come to Jesus Christ to be saved from the judgmen to come.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 9, 2006 18:04:09 GMT -5
Valentine, glad to get a response from you.
However, we are minutes away from hitting the road for North Carolina. I will be back on the boards at the nearest possible time to answer your questions and/or to refute your rebuttles.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 9, 2006 18:09:29 GMT -5
Valentine, glad to get a response from you. However, we are minutes away from hitting the road for North Carolina. I will be back on the boards at the nearest possible time to answer your questions and/or to refute your rebuttles. Will do! ;D Looking forward to it, good sir! ...and I will be ready and waiting with myriad information falling well within the realm of "TMI." Especially if you should try to refute that last point.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 9, 2006 18:53:56 GMT -5
I know it hurts because God has given me a logical and reasonable mind. But ultimately, I guess I simply assume it hurts.Why? Because it hurts! So can you really say, "do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone"? If you are to stay true to your ethical principle, you would have to condemn this type of sex. If you choose to change your ethical principle, you show that you are bending and manipulating your moral code to fit something you are already presupposing is ok. I do not make moral principles based on what I like or what I don't like. Rather I simply acknowledge that God has given us a universal code of conduct, and therefore sin is universal, and judgment will be universal. So all must come to Jesus Christ to be saved from the judgmen to come. *yawn* I'm with Valentine, your repetitive arguments are getting old fast. See my above post. Willingly tolerated discomfort/pain is not the same thing as unwanted visciousness and cruelty. Also, your statement that you simply "assume it hurts" proves one thing to me: You have no proof and are simply relying on prejudiced stereotypes to draw your conclusions from. But what's new? :D Both types of sex in question, homosexual and heterosexual sex, may be somewhat painful (in the beginning, not always...) PHYSICALLY, but they are not methods of inflicting actual hurt or harm on a person, as they are consensual and desired mutually by both partners.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 10, 2006 0:40:54 GMT -5
Who gave you the authority to say "anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt anyone". It sounds to me like you are making up your own principle for morality and then are forcing it on everyone else. Do you claim to be autonomous? What makes you say that you can do as you please sexually so long as you don't hurt anyone? Actually, I believe that would be Thomas Jefferson. Well, Jefferson didn't give the rights, he just illuminated the rights which humans are inherently entitled to. You see, we live in a country made up of a very diverse background of creeds, races, and ethnicities. The founders displayed an amazing ability to include rights for minority groups and to create a system which by its very nature was inclusive to outsiders. These men, you see, had a new philosophy never before seen by mankind. This philosophy basically stated that governments did not have the right to give rights to anyone, rather governments could only exist to protect the rights which all human beings naturally had, "as endowed by their creator." Now, I know you are going to give me a response telling me that the founding fathers were all Christian and founded this country on Christian principles. Before you say that--and you will say that--please remember that Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was a deist. Deists would definitely not fit your definition of Christianity! Thomas Jefferson wrote his own translation of the Bible which leaves out all miracles of Jesus and omits the virgin birth and resurrection stories. This Bible is still given to members of Congress when they are sworn in. If you doubt what I say about Jefferson's stance on religion and its relationship to state, I think he's pretty clear on the issue: "It does no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God." I believe that valentine was attempting to express the notion that we don't need the permission of someone's God (even if that group is in the majority) because humans have certain rights inherently. Allow me to quote from the document which spurred the creation of our great nation: "When in the Course human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." [Emphasis added]And that was just the first two paragraphs. Especially take note of the last section which I made bold: The King of Great Britain violated the rights--the inherent rights--of mankind, therefore it was their duty to throw off his tyrrany. Remember that the King derived his power from the divine. He claimed that he had been chosen by God Almighty to rule for the betterment of his people. The doctrine of the colonists claimed this divine authority to be patently false. Therefore, I believe that, to answer your question, we all have certain inalienable rights which governments can neither grant nor infringe upon. One of those rights is the right to the pursuit of happiness. Another is the right to liberty. No one, not even someone claiming the authority of God, can remove these rights, becuase they exist according to the laws of nature and nature's God. This is, according to the Declaration, supposed to be "self-evident."
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 10, 2006 0:58:38 GMT -5
It sounds to me like you are making up your own principle for morality and then are forcing it on everyone else. Who said that there was anything wrong with defining one's own sense of morals? Actually, to quote the opinion of the Supreme Court in their decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), there is a right that exists "at the heart of liberty," the right "to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the state." And I'm not sure how Valentine is forcing her understanding of morality on anyone else. She seems to be restating what John Stuart Mill said so eloquently, "the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it." The beauty of this libertarian argument is that Valentine or Morluna or Jesse or myself can each have our own understanding of morality. This understanding is our own, and we never force anyone else to abide by it. You claim that Valentine is forcing her beliefs on others. I'm not sure how you can consider her to be doing that. All she does is live in the manner which she feels is right. You, on the other hand, tell other people how they have to live in order to be moral. If they disagree, you say that they aren't Christain, perhaps you attach monikers to their names (war-monger, rock and roll freak, so on), nevertheless, you attack them for not believing that which you believe. This violates the libertarian principle which is attached so strongly to the American concept of unalienable rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. I am not claiming that your sense of morals is wrong, Jesse. I am not claiming that Valentine's sense of morals is right. I am only claiming that we all have a right to define our own. Yes, we are autonomous. That is the nature of being human. I must agree with Arthur C. Clarke, "the greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." Oh, and I must say that I can definitely empathize with Barry Goldwater's statement that he was "frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling [him] as a citizen that if [he] want[ed] to be a moral person, [he] must believe in A, B, C, and D."
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 10, 2006 0:58:44 GMT -5
Ironically enough, I was watching the History Channel earlier and a man of the Pequot tribe (it was a show about Native American history) said this: “The idea that all men are created equal is what makes America the greatest country in the world. I don’t care that the man that wrote it owned slaves. It’s the IDEAL in the statement that matters.” This made me really stop and think, because I have always been very critical of Thomas Jefferson. I consider him a hypocrite for writing lines like "all men are created equal" while simultaneously holding the belief that black men and women, and Native American men and women, and anyone not falling into the category "white," are not really men and women at all, and so they don't count. But he makes a valid point with this statement. It doesn't matter how the man who said it lived, what matters is that it was said, by someone, and that it is true. You've made an excellent argument here WanderingTrekker. Love it. I would respond more fully but I'm tired... Peace! ** EDIT ** It sounds to me like you are making up your own principle for morality and then are forcing it on everyone else. Who said that there was anything wrong with defining one's own sense of morals? Actually, to quote the opinion of the Supreme Court in their decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), there is a right that exists "at the heart of liberty," the right "to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the state." And I'm not sure how Valentine is forcing her understanding of morality on anyone else. She seems to be restating what John Stuart Mill said so eloquently, "the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."The beauty of this libertarian argument is that Valentine or Morluna or Jesse or myself can each have our own understanding of morality. This understanding is our own, and we never force anyone else to abide by it. You claim that Valentine is forcing her beliefs on others. I'm not sure how you can consider her to be doing that. All she does is live in the manner which she feels is right. You, on the other hand, tell other people how they have to live in order to be moral. If they disagree, you say that they aren't Christain, perhaps you attach monikers to their names (war-monger, rock and roll freak, so on), nevertheless, you attack them for not believing that which you believe. This violates the libertarian principle which is attached so strongly to the American concept of unalienable rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. I am not claiming that your sense of morals is wrong, Jesse. I am not claiming that Valentine's sense of morals is right. I am only claiming that we all have a right to define our own. Yes, we are autonomous. That is the nature of being human.I must agree with Arthur C. Clarke, "the greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." Oh, and I must say that I can definitely empathize with Barry Goldwater's statement that he was "frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling [him] as a citizen that if [he] want[ed] to be a moral person, [he] must believe in A, B, C, and D." *punches desk in excitement* YES!! YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES! THANK YOU!!!! It's nice to be reminded that we are not alone in our sanity. I bolded my favorite parts. Thank you for being so amazing. Peace, love, and solidarity, (that's the first time I've been able to attach "solidarity" to my salutation on this site! LOL xD) Morluna Direvrailian~ "Oratrice de la verite/Speaker of the truth"
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 12, 2006 9:29:00 GMT -5
"My main point is, when Valentine said that she judges morality on whether something she says or does is hurtful to others, I imagine her more specific meaning was that she judges morality on whether something is hurtful and unwanted by another."
This is not a credible standard for judging morality. This view espoused above is called "minimalist ethics." Basically saying "A thing is ethical as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. So, what I do in my bedroom with my boyfriend or my girlfriend, or my same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend, is nobody's business because "it doesn't hurt anybody."
Part of the failure of this argument is that it presumes we are omniscient when it comes to the harm that our actions cause. How do we know it doesn't hurt anybody? There are lots of things we thought were innocuous that resulted in lots of damage. People have pre-marital sex. They get pregnant. Then they either get an abortion or carry the child to term. Either way, there are circumstances that are difficult and trying and bring harm and difficulty to other people not engaged in the original conduct--the parents, the friends, the government. In fact, the expectation of the difficulty is what prompts people to choose abortion. But this is not without cost either; the baby loses its life.
You start out doing what you want because "it's not hurting anybody." All of a sudden, lots of people are getting hurt in ways you never planned nor foresaw. You see, you never really know what is going to hurt other people and what isn't. That's one of the problems with this ethic.
People cast off conventional ethics and think they can build their own, so they construct this thing called the minimalist ethic and use it as a defense of their own immorality. One can do anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But the ploy doesn't work. First, it presumes they know all the consequences of their actions, and they don't. Second, even if they did, the standard is inadequate. Because the standard is usually their own morals, which is no standard at all. By definition a standard is: "an acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value, a criterion." (American Heritage Dictionary)
The key words in that definition being "acknowledged measure of comparison" and "criterion." Where's the criteria your morals are judged by?
If you are a non-Christian, you are by necessity forced to live in some kind of contradiction because the biblical world view does, in fact, describe the way the world is in reality. If you try to live in denial of the Scriptures, your life will be a contradiction. The reason is that you are forced to live in the world God has made, and any other morality or way of life or world view that you adopt is going to be at odds with reality. That's why the minimalist ethic doesn't work. It isn't true to what is.
Thanks to Greg Koukl for his outstanding work on ethics for help in this.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 12, 2006 10:46:55 GMT -5
"My main point is, when Valentine said that she judges morality on whether something she says or does is hurtful to others, I imagine her more specific meaning was that she judges morality on whether something is hurtful and unwanted by another." This is not a credible standard for judging morality. This view espoused above is called "minimalist ethics." Basically saying "A thing is ethical as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. So, what I do in my bedroom with my boyfriend or my girlfriend, or my same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend, is nobody's business because "it doesn't hurt anybody." Part of the failure of this argument is that it presumes we are omniscient when it comes to the harm that our actions cause. How do we know it doesn't hurt anybody?[/u] There are lots of things we thought were innocuous that resulted in lots of damage. People have pre-marital sex. They get pregnant. Then they either get an abortion or carry the child to term. Either way, there are circumstances that are difficult and trying and bring harm and difficulty to other people not engaged in the original conduct--the parents, the friends, the government. In fact, the expectation of the difficulty is what prompts people to choose abortion. But this is not without cost either; the baby loses its life.[/quote] AGGH! I am so sick and tired of the assumption that if you have "premarital sex" you will get pregnant. There are so many options for birth control today, there is no reason to run the risk of pregnancy. NONE. This is assuming the couple in question is aware of the options. Unless sex ed in the schools is revamped, they won't be. I disagree. I do not accept your Bible as irrifutible fact.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 12, 2006 11:02:57 GMT -5
Interesting that the two things you chose to focus on in my post are "side issues."
You didn't deal with the fundamental flaw in your ethics: How do you know what you do doesn't hurt other people? Are you omniscient? Can you see into the future and know for sure that the ripple effect of your actions has no negative consequences for someone else?
And what is the standard you base your principles and morals on? We know a line is crooked only by looking at a straight line. You are in a train sitting next to another train and it's looks like you are moving-how do you know it isn't the other train that's moving? Why you look at a stationary object of course (a tree, a pole, etc.)
To judge good or bad, hurting or not hurting there must be a standard outside of ourselves to base that judgment on. A criterion to judge by (that straight line and stationary pole). What's yours?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 12, 2006 11:03:11 GMT -5
Despite the rather questionable user name, luvofchrist does make a good point concerning the possible inability to define what is hurtful and what is not. I agree that there are possible lines in the sand, depending on the situation. Obviously, something like rape is not permissable because harm has been done, but if we consider the great chain of emotional harm, that's a potential slippery slope. For things like this, I tend to say that if said emotional harm was unintentional and done without knowledge, you can't be faulted for it. I think you'd have to bring in some form of emotional "clear and present danger" clause here in order to really get behind the "do no harm" idea. Of course, I wasn't asking anyone to take up my worldview. It's my worldview, not yours. If you are a non-Christian, you are by necessity forced to live in some kind of contradiction because the biblical world view does, in fact, describe the way the world is in reality. If you try to live in denial of the Scriptures, your life will be a contradiction. The reason is that you are forced to live in the world God has made, and any other morality or way of life or world view that you adopt is going to be at odds with reality. That's why the minimalist ethic doesn't work. It isn't true to what is. Your opinion, not mine. My opinion is that I should no more live by the Bible than I should live by The Catcher in the Rye or The Good Earth. It's fiction to me. Nothing more. I really shouldn't have to keep saying this, but I'll forgive you because I believe you are new.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 12, 2006 11:10:16 GMT -5
On what do you base your opinion that the Bible is fiction?
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 12, 2006 11:26:52 GMT -5
For the record, I am a licensed nurse and as a medical professional I am here to tell you that there is no 100% sure birth control outside of abstinence. NONE!
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 12, 2006 13:19:53 GMT -5
On what do you base your opinion that the Bible is fiction? On what do you base your opinion that it is true? It's just that: an opinion. I'll answer when you will. For now, I'm going to write my paper on Dr. Faustus...which is, coincidentally, another work of fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 12, 2006 13:46:16 GMT -5
Interesting that the two things you chose to focus on in my post are "side issues." You didn't deal with the fundamental flaw in your ethics: How do you know what you do doesn't hurt other people? Are you omniscient? Can you see into the future and know for sure that the ripple effect of your actions has no negative consequences for someone else? And what is the standard you base your principles and morals on? We know a line is crooked only by looking at a straight line. You are in a train sitting next to another train and it's looks like you are moving-how do you know it isn't the other train that's moving? Why you look at a stationary object of course (a tree, a pole, etc.) To judge good or bad, hurting or not hurting there must be a standard outside of ourselves to base that judgment on. A criterion to judge by (that straight line and stationary pole). What's yours? I'm sorry if you think I answered your questions inefficiently, I honestly just didn't have the time to write an essay length response answering them all, particularly because I've already answered similar questions in other threads. I wasn't trying to evade your questions and I certainly didn't choose to leave them unanswered because I lack adequate answers for them. I'm going to pull a bit of a cop out here and just say that Valentine answered them adequately enough to serve as my voice as well, because she did. If something you do hurts someone, but you aren't aware that it's hurting them, I don't think you should be accountable for that hurt. All you can do is apologize for it if it is ever brought to your attention. I would go into more detail but I really have got other things to do this afternoon. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 12, 2006 14:20:54 GMT -5
If something you do hurts someone, but you aren't aware that it's hurting them, I don't think you should be accountable for that hurt. All you can do is apologize for it if it is ever brought to your attention. I would go into more detail but I really have got other things to do this afternoon. Sorry. And let me also add that if you need a book to tell you ANY of that, I am very, very concerned. This really seems like Morluna and I are trying to tell a group of machines how to be decent human beings, and the machines keep trying to check everything we say against their programming. We are more than that, guys. We're not slaves to a book. Let's think. Let's think about how not to hurt others, and let's do that on our own and prove that we have a conscience. Kay? And I concur, once again: I have an essay to write. I'm sorry if your fundamentalist ramblings are not my top priority at the moment. Whoops, there I go again making school an idol! Guess that's another strike against me. At this rate, do you think I'll earn a box seat in hell? EDIT: evanschaible, please see above for the reason why I will probably not address your post immediately. For now, I will just say that science says otherwise and I'll be directing you to evidence subsequently, after I've proved my thesis that Faust was seeking not forgiveness from god, but mercy from Lucifer, caused by his misshapen view of the world.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 12, 2006 14:22:36 GMT -5
Morluna, Valentine, Trekker, Could you be wrong? I mean the fact that you so staunchly stand behind your claims and justify homosexuality you must believe that you are right with no inkling of being wrong. However, that fact that homosexuality is not a natural occorance should be enough to cast doubts. Think of it this way. Since you are more than likely advocates of evolution as well, I submit this to you. The basic tenets of evolution propagate the idea of the earth practically creating itself. If this were the case, and only male and female organisms can succesfully reproduce, this is self contradictory and therefore how can we belive what you say?
If life "evolved" then homosexuality would never have been introduced because this would be losing information which also violoates your view.
Since you likely belive that life evolved, what would have happened if the first two creatures were homosexual? Again you view cannot stand.
Or maybe you are wrong and the Bible is right? The bible is the only consistent and lgical guide to life and eternity. But I guess you know that, since you have examined the Bibles claims for yourself (have you done this?).
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 12, 2006 14:42:34 GMT -5
For the record, I am a licensed nurse and as a medical professional I am here to tell you that there is no 100% sure birth control outside of abstinence. NONE! And as a 20 year old woman who prides herself on being very educated about her own body, I agree with you. But I ask you this, what is 100% in life? Anything? No. Nothing is. So this is unfair. There are however very VERY effective methods and products that work up to 99.98% of the time (hormonal meds like the pill), and that's just as good as 100% for me, personally. Besides... if you know anything about how cycles work, and of course you know quite a lot being a nurse, you'll know that a woman is only fertile for a few days every month. So just by charting your cycle and not having sex on those days it's pretty easy to avoid pregnancy. Also, who's to say that you won't abstain from sex entirely just to get raped randomly one day? Then what? There goes your 100% baby. Nothing in life is certain. Walking outside of my building is dangerous... I could get hit by a bus one day while crossing the street. LIFE IS RISKY BUSINESS. GET USED TO IT. Morluna, Valentine, Trekker, Could you be wrong? I mean the fact that you so staunchly stand behind your claims and justify homosexuality you must believe that you are right with no inkling of being wrong. However, that fact that homosexuality is not a natural occorance should be enough to cast doubts. Think of it this way. Since you are more than likely advocates of evolution as well, I submit this to you. The basic tenets of evolution propagate the idea of the earth practically creating itself. If this were the case, and only male and female organisms can succesfully reproduce, this is self contradictory and therefore how can we belive what you say? If life "evolved" then homosexuality would never have been introduced because this would be losing information which also violoates your view. Since you likely belive that life evolved, what would have happened if the first two creatures were homosexual? Again you view cannot stand. Or maybe you are wrong and the Bible is right? The bible is the only consistent and lgical guide to life and eternity. But I guess you know that, since you have examined the Bibles claims for yourself (have you done this?). Of course I have. I followed Christian doctrine very strictly for 4 years. To go back to the early part of your post, you say that homosexuality does not occur in nature... I would like to enter this piece of evidence as item A: CENSOREDBonobos engage in quite a lot of what you would call "immoral" sexual acts, including homosexual intercourse, on a regular basis. Interestingly, bonobos are one of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Also interestingly, one of the bonobos other closest relatives is the chimpanzee. Bonobos are well-known for their highly dynamic and well-developed sex lives. Consequently, they are very peaceful creatures and rarely engage in aggresive behaviors. Chimps on the other hand, are not nearly as sexual as bonobos and usually only engage in mating very infrequently for reproductive purposes. Chimps are well-known in the animal kingdom for their extreme aggression, violence, and troop warfare. Coincidence? I think not. "If life "evolved" then homosexuality would never have been introduced because this would be losing information which also violoates your view. "Since you likely belive that life evolved, what would have happened if the first two creatures were homosexual? Again you view cannot stand." All of you guys keep making statements like this on the very wrongful assumption that we somehow think ALL people should be homosexual. This is ludicrous. Obviously I don't think so... because I'm straight. I happen to love peens. (Not always the people that wield them... LOL, jk guys.) You speak of the evolution of homosexuality like if it exists it has to exist in order to serve some evolutionary purpose. Hello? We're past the point in human development at which every human impulse or activity has to serve some reproductive or evolutionary purpose. The world population is doing just fine, thanks. I think society can stand to lose however many babies it might have produced otherwise to those who are inclined to homosexuality, asexuality, or non-reproductive sex. Further, it's placing us on the same level of importance and prestige in our impulses as animals to say so. Like we can't have wants or needs that don't serve a physical or evolutionary purpose. Seriously. [edit] Jesse: Ergh. Blast you and your power of moderation. I had a very educational photo of bonobos sexing up in the above post. It was not untasteful either. Whatever. Google it if you wanna.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 12, 2006 14:47:53 GMT -5
Morluna, are you ingoring me?
|
|