Anglican church against gay marriage

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Then why has it been observed among 15,000 species of animals?!

In the context of natural law, that's not what natural means. Natural in the context of natural law means a right that is simply right without need of justification.

Inn the context of biology, that's exactly what it means.

In fairness, most people who argue natural law do a piss poor job of explaining that.

That would be because natural law is bullshit.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You're playing a game of ring around the rosy and all your arguments are falling down. How is Same-sex marriage any less natural than Different-Sex marriage without using the words 'disorderliness' and 'abnormality'?

SSM lacks the natural(in the sense of natural law) complementarity between male and female.

Extending this logic further, natural law lacks the tolerance for homosexuality to base legislation on.

[Diopolis]

SSM lacks the natural(in the sense of natural law) complementarity between male and female.

Extending this logic further, natural law lacks the tolerance for homosexuality to base legislation on.

Yes.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Can't say I'm surprised.

Extending this logic further, natural law lacks the tolerance for homosexuality to base legislation on.

Yes.

I found the harm principle useful for a base for the enaction of some laws.

[Constantinopolis]

Can't say I'm surprised.

Yes.

I found the harm principle useful for a base for the enaction of some laws.

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Can't say I'm surprised.

I found the harm principle useful for a base for the enaction of some laws.

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

*Some* laws.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Can't say I'm surprised.

I found the harm principle useful for a base for the enaction of some laws.

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

That was something I found when I thought about it too much. I was attracted to it because it seemed simpler and less arbitrary than religious or ideological principles. Though I undid myself without knowing it at the time: the harm principle is part of its' own ideology, after all.

[Geilinor]

Can't say I'm surprised.

I found the harm principle useful for a base for the enaction of some laws.

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

The critical flaw of natural law is that there's nothing quite "natural" about it, being based on one religion's morality. That's not universally accepted either.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

The critical flaw of natural law is that there's nothing quite "natural" about it, being based on one religion's morality. That's not universally accepted either.

One our you fine young gentlemen should make a thread on this to better facilitate discussion.

[The Flutterlands]

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

The critical flaw of natural law is that there's nothing quite "natural" about it, being based on one religion's morality. That's not universally accepted either.

Exactly.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

What no love for the apostolic church of Armenia?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What no love for the apostolic church of Armenia?

If they don't play with snakes, then they're not a real church.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

What no love for the apostolic church of Armenia?

If they don't play with snakes, then they're not a real church.

Funny enough a theology espousing Jesus as the serpent used to be the primary reason for handling snakes (because obviously it wouldn't harm said worshipers).

[Kannap]

If they don't play with snakes, then they're not a real church.

Funny enough a theology espousing Jesus as the serpent used to be the primary reason for handling snakes (because obviously it wouldn't harm said worshipers).

Ironically, I am currently reading a fictional novel about a modern-day church that is located in my area of North Carolina and apparently has strange practices of members holding deadly poisonous snakes in the idea that they should not fear the snakes because God will protect them. Within the first chapter, one woman had already been killed by a cottonmouth in the church. The elders apparently took her to her home and left her face down in the garden and failed to notify anybody of her death. Apparently the pastor is also an adulterer who burned half of his body because he thought God was going to protect him from fire.

Quite a backwards church, it would seem.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You're playing a game of ring around the rosy and all your arguments are falling down. How is Same-sex marriage any less natural than Different-Sex marriage without using the words 'disorderliness' and 'abnormality'?

SSM lacks the natural(in the sense of natural law) complementarity between male and female.

Pray, who determines these natural laws, because it is certainly anti-natural.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Extending this logic further, natural law lacks the tolerance for homosexuality to base legislation on.

Yes.

Again, what is natural law?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You mean, beside pointing to instances where it occurs in other animals, but I am not arguing that it is natural (it is, it has occurred in both human, primates, and other, more distantly related species, and is well documented, there is even an ignobel prize awarded, some years back, to the first recorded instance of homosexual necrophilia amongst mallard ducks), but that it is permissible within the Bible, and even if it is unnatural, there is no way to get from that descriptive statement to a modal one, such as 'you shouldn't be gay'.

Your point are insufficient and invalid . There is nothing good in this your point , in-short you are nothing but a gay lobbyist

You have no idea what words mean, do you?

[The Flutterlands]

Your point are insufficient and invalid . There is nothing good in this your point , in-short you are nothing but a gay lobbyist

You have no idea what words mean, do you?

To him, gay lobbyist = LGBT rights supporter.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You have no idea what words mean, do you?

To him, gay lobbyist = LGBT rights supporter.

Not only that, he doesn't seem to be getting my point, like, at all.

[Constantinopolis]

The critical flaw of the harm principle is that there is no single, universally accepted definition of "harm".

The critical flaw of natural law is that there's nothing quite "natural" about it, being based on one religion's morality. That's not universally accepted either.

Indeed. From an atheist point of view, all ethical systems have critical flaws and inconsistencies, making it impossible for us to rationally determine what is good and what is evil. Atheists may believe that certain things are good and other things are bad, but all such beliefs, combined with atheism, are irrational.

Which is one of the main reasons why I am not an atheist. To be a (rational) atheist, I would be forced to conclude that nothing is good and nothing is evil, and therefore we have no way to determine if a course of action is better than another (since X can only be "better" than Y as long as objective good exists), and therefore we might as well live our lives at random, choosing our actions by rolling dice.

Without religion, there is no basis for ethics. And without ethics, we cannot rationally choose between one course of action and another. Life has no direction or purpose.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The critical flaw of natural law is that there's nothing quite "natural" about it, being based on one religion's morality. That's not universally accepted either.

Indeed. From an atheist point of view, all ethical systems have critical flaws and inconsistencies, making it impossible for us to rationally determine what is good and what is evil. Atheists may believe that certain things are good and other things are bad, but all such beliefs, combined with atheism, are irrational.

Which is one of the main reasons why I am not an atheist. To be a (rational) atheist, I would be forced to conclude that nothing is good and nothing is evil, and therefore we have no way to determine if a course of action is better than another (since X can only be "better" than Y as long as objective good exists), and therefore we might as well live our lives at random, choosing our actions by rolling dice.

Without religion, there is no basis for ethics. And without ethics, we cannot rationally choose between one course of action and another. Life has no direction or purpose.

You don't read much on ethics, do you?

After that you are just appealing to the consequence, which isn't at all logical or convincing.

[Constantinopolis]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

[Geilinor]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

By your definition, are nonreligious people absolutely amoral or do nonreligious people not exist?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

This is premised on the idea that we cannot rationally get an independent system of objective morals without recourse to religion, falling back to the old tu quoque, 'So what if I am a bigot because I believe being X is wrong, everything is a belief in the end' bullshit.

[Washington Resistance Army]

To be clear, what I'm saying with regard to the topic of this thread is as follows:

It is not possible to determine if something is "good" or "bad" independent of religious beliefs. Therefore, people who keep saying "Same-sex marriage is only bad according to your beliefs!" are correct. However, what they are failing to understand is that everything that is "bad" is only bad according to someone's beliefs. There is no higher, "neutral" standard of good and bad, above religion (or people's quasi-religious beliefs).

Shit, I guess me deciding whether things are good or bad on an almost daily basis is impossible. Somehow