Supreme Court Ruling.

[mosquitoman]

Bottom post of the previous page:

He issue lies where people's opinions infringe on the freedom of others, and they think they are more correct or more right or drivin by riteous divine purpose. That is when people get oppressed and people start killing other people. I firmly believe that people should be able to gold whatever opinions they want as long as they do not try to push them on other people.

This is the problem with moral relativism though, because if everyone's opinion is equal, why even view killing or oppression as wrong? Clearly someone benefits from it somehow, so why not allow it, if morality is subjective?

I have thousands of years of religious traditions all over the world that prove that. What do you have?

Logical fallacy, appeal to tradition. Tradition proves nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Do you sit with wikipedia's list of logical fallacies open in another tab and try to match what you see to the list? That's no way to have a discussion about anything. Appeal to wikipedia, huh?

Religious tradition isn't "proof" of anything. It only proves that people have believed something for years, not that it is true.
They also didn't believe the same thing, so it's not actually proof of that either.

They did and it is, what other information do we have about human spirituality? You can use pure and direct intellection, which is another brand of supra-rational faculty, as I mentioned in another post, but clearly no one here is capable of that. You can't use rationalism to prove that which by nature is beyond mere rational knowledge.

[mosquitoman]

People used to believe for a long time that leaches were a critical method of medical practice, that sniffing herbs could stop germs in the air and that someone drowning was indicative of them not being a witch, that does not mean they are right.

But don't let me stop the popcorn march.

That's not metaphysical knowledge though, it's knowledge about relativity which can be tested and verified by using methods contained within said relativity. For obvious reasons you can't use those when you speak about what is supposed to be a metaphysical issue.

[CPTANT]

Bullshit isn't really metaphysical, though, and I'm sure Plato saw gay relationships as normal.

He didn't, at all. Common misconception. I would like to see anything that would even suggest that the issue at hand might not have its root in metaphysics. I shared why I think it does, why don't you?

The burden of proof is on the claiment, you cannot say that homosexuality is wrong based on a divine objective principal that you assure us exists and then tell us to prove you wrong

So for you it's ultimately a question of atheism, isn't it? If it is, you can easily prove me wrong, by either disproving the existence of God completely, or showing that there's no objectivity. But if you say there's no objective truth to be discovered or known, then all that remains are opinions, and they're all equally valid. So whatever you say is as true as anyone else might say about any given subject.

You have given no argumentation, metaphysical or not of why a gay marriage would be immoral to begin with. You just attribute these divine qualities to marriage yourself, which can be viewed as nothing but pure opinion. You have done nothing to argument why the morality of a marriage is even in the slightest affected by whether the people involved have dicks or pussies. The only thing you mentioned is that it is somehow deviant behaviour. Collecting fucking post stamps can be considered deviant behaviour (there are more people gay than there are people collecting stamps) does this make collecting stamps immoral? Or any other "deviant" behaviour?


Your statement concerning the burden of proof is downright wrong. It is not up to Atheists to disprove the existence of a god (this is literally impossible for a god that is placed outside of the observable universe by its own followers). The same way your statement without any proof of its validity does not have to be disproved.

It is very simple (and this is actually a very important and often ignored matter).
Either we accept all statements that have no proof to argue for them, but can not be disproved either or we reject them.
Are you saying we should accept all statements that have no proof either way?

[Drynwyn]

I have thousands of years of religious traditions all over the world that prove that. What do you have?

Logical fallacy, appeal to tradition. Tradition proves nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Do you sit with wikipedia's list of logical fallacies open in another tab and try to match what you see to the list? That's no way to have a discussion about anything. Appeal to wikipedia, huh?

Waaaaaaaah I got called out on my shitty reasoning so I'm gonna say YOU KNOW THINGS SO YOU MUST BE AN AUTIST

[mosquitoman]

But I already said why it is immoral, it's because it's a violation of the cosmic order so to speak. Now you either accept that there's an order, and the truth behind this is self evident, or you derp out and remain a relativist, in which case nothing can be proved anyway. This is why it's such a polarizing issue.

BTW, speaking of proofs of the existence of God, there are many. We have the "prime" mover of Aristotle, the so called "ontological argument" of St. Thomas, the "God as a spirit" argument of St. Augustine, and then we have the neo-Platonic notion of the "absolute". Those are among the common arguments put forth by traditionalist Christians to define the nature of God. What do we have that resembles any notion of logical argument in favour of atheism?

[Drynwyn]

But I already said why it is immoral, it's because it's a violation of the cosmic order so to speak. Now you either accept that there's an order, and the truth behind this is self evident, or you derp out and remain a relativist, in which case nothing can be proved anyway. This is why it's such a polarizing issue.

BTW, speaking of proofs of the existence of God, there are many. We have the "prime" mover of Aristotle, the so called "ontological argument" of St. Thomas, the "God as a spirit" argument of St. Augustine, and then we have the neo-Platonic notion of the "absolute". Those are among the common arguments put forth by traditionalist Christians to define the nature of God. What do we have that resembles any notion of logical argument in favour of atheism?

For the record- Not an atheist!

That said- You're equating the dogma of religious orders with "cosmic order". They aren't the same thing. Furthermore, you haven't proved that two people with penises loving each other is not part of this "cosmic order".

Additionally, you equate legal marriage with the religious idea of marriage.


IMO, marriage as a legal institution can be separate from marriage as a religious institution. If Church Y doesn't want to consider Nick and Tom married, that's fine- but claiming that the government should be denying them the right to visit each other after hours if one of them is in the hospital, and other legal rights of couples, on the basis of the religious beliefs of Church Y, is unethical.

[Jacquerel]

You've yet to prove I'm not an invisible dragon, I assure you that it's a metaphysical issue. I embody the divine concept of some people being really cool invisible mythical beasts.

[mosquitoman]

You've yet to prove I'm not an invisible dragon, I assure you that it's a metaphysical issue. I embody the divine concept of some people being really cool invisible mythical beasts.

That's complete and utter gibberish. I guess that's what you have to resort too since the actual problem is so above your mental capacity.

[mosquitoman]

That said- You're equating the dogma of religious orders with "cosmic order". They aren't the same thing. Furthermore, you haven't proved that two people with penises loving each other is not part of this "cosmic order".

On a spiritual level, marriage is supposed to be a reflection in relativity of the perfect unity of masculine and feminine elements in the Absolute. Penises etc. are irrelevant and relative, what matters is the balance of yin and yang, so to speak.

Additionally, you equate legal marriage with the religious idea of marriage.

No, I stressed that several times, It doesn't matter what this or that government creates in its jurisdiction and it's not what irks religious people either.

[Wyzack]

So what makes his complete gibberish and your not?

[mosquitoman]

Are you all braindead? Does what he says make any sense whatsoever to you? I'm asking seriously, because your post seems to suggest it does.

This is the same kind of fallacy as flying spaghetti monster or Russel's teapot (when applied to theology). The vomit in his post cannot be even examined critically because it makes so little sense from any perspective, it can't even serve as an ironic refutation or an ad absurdum attempt at exaggeration because there's nothing that would anchor what he said in any place of the previous discussion. It's literally just "le derp xd". You can't respond to this sh*t seriously, it's too demeaning.

[Wyzack]

It does not matter if it makes sense. The entire point of the thought exercise is that your claims about a divine absolute are just as valid as his claims about being a giant monster or whatever. That is to say they both seem utterly absurd, but you have put forward just as much proof as he has.

[CPTANT]

On a spiritual level, marriage is supposed to be a reflection in relativity of the perfect unity of masculine and feminine elements in the Absolute.

That's complete and utter gibberish. I guess that's what you have to resort too since the actual problem is so above your mental capacity.


Who the fuck determines what a marriage is supposed to be? Can't people just determine FOR THEMSELVES what they want their marriage to be? I do not hold to that definition of marriage at all for ANY marriage. You somehow have the notion that people can't have different idea's about what a marriage is. it IS a social agreement, there is nothing absolute about it. This does not mean it is without value, just that its value is different for every person. You seem to be somehow offended by the pure notion of people having a different opinion on the matter.


And yes I reject your statement that there is a "cosmic order".
And I completely reject the notion that its existence is self evident.
I also reject that the existence of a cosmic order would somehow imply gay marriage being opposed of that order.

All on the complete lack of any form of proof or reasoning provided.

Furthermore I also reject the notion that this causes nothing to be provable. Empirical evidence and logic can prove statements just fine.

[mosquitoman]

It does not matter if it makes sense. The entire point of the thought exercise is that your claims about a divine absolute are just as valid as his claims about being a giant monster or whatever. That is to say they both seem utterly absurd, but you have put forward just as much proof as he has.

No they're not, because the Absolute has certain properties that are inherent to it, and can be deduced (for example how do I know that the masculine and feminine elements exist in it in perfect unity? because they cannot be less than perfect in a perfect being). He's talking about obviously impossible fantastical scenario which is 100% contained in the material world to throw me off. So to stop his verbal diarrhoea, I don't even bother with responding to it seriously and tell him to f*ck off, since he's obviously not trying to make a serious point about anything, and instead seeks to either turn the discussion into trolls trolling trolls, or to detract me from my reasoning. I don't have any time or respect for this kind of attitude.

[John_Oxford]

On that note.
/tg/ can't handle politics.
Thank you, goodnight america.