Philosophy Discussion Forums

I agree. I didn't quite understand how we got to the point of talking about same-sex marriage when I responded either. As rightly pointed out, many religious and non-religious have made this a point of morality. In some sense this supports my original point regarding the search for absolute morality. No matter what side of this issue you are on, man, left to man's own moral justifications, can make a complete mess of things and cause significant harm. This is one example.

Regarding the source of homosexuality, I am not aware that it has been definitively concluded that is only genetically determined at birth or learned. Based on my own personal experience I have seen examples of both. One if our friends was "different" from us since we were kids and before we even knew what sex was. Another friend was perfectly straight and after a trip abroad came back and said he was gay. I don't see why this behaviour could not be taught, since society teaches so much behaviours. Even what a person perceives as attractive is taught.

As I said, same sex marriage should not be a moral issue. Further, religions as well as governments and secular organizations should stay out of the sex business. It is a question of what is best for society. Not what is best for them.

Now the real test comes down to this. If you want to reach your children and grandchildren that it is just fine to be gay if they choose or that they should experiment with sexuality or maybe they dress like the opposite sex or choose their gender, then be my guest. But don't communicate that to my kids or grandchildren. If they are like my best friend and clearly have no choice, then that is a different conversation. I will side with what societies have chosen to do across the world for centuries and teach what marriage means, religious or secular. Our current generation has not demonstrated any superior intellect or knowledge giving them the wisdom or authority to change this important part of the world's predominate cultures. If I am wrong about this generation, please show me. I haven't seen it except for technology.

How does one say that they were persecuted by Catholics because they wanted to throw Catholicism out of their Church? This is not logical. If fact they wanted to purify their the Church of England from many things, not just the Papists.

Good job. I will concede that you can relate the word Puritan to purification of some remnants of Catholicism. But this does nothing to refute my original point they were not fleeing the Catholic Church to come to America. You can read that in the same articles which you have quoted. You have restored some credibility.

Tommarcus:

How does one say that they were persecuted by Catholics because they wanted to throw Catholicism out of their Church? This is not logical.

I said nothing about persecution. Ridding their church of the influence of Catholicism has nothing to do with persecution.

But this does nothing to refute my original point they were not fleeing the Catholic Church to come to America.

It was not refuted because it is just a scenario that you made up and then denied happened.

You have restored some credibility.

That’s funny! You questioned my credibility because I said something that is true but you thought was false. It never was my credibility that was in danger.

Unless you stop with the smokescreens and provide some substantive responses I see no point in continuing.

Fooloso4

You said that the Pilgrims came to America because of the Church of England and Catholic Church. They were not fleeing the Catholic Church. That is nonsense. In fact, as you well researched, they were themselves attacking the Catholic influence in the Church of England. Because they disagreed with these authorities, they were ostracized. Hence I gave you partial credit. However, I agree that we may have exhausted ourselves on this historical aspect of the topic's subject. Enjoyed the discourse.

Reply to Tommarcus:

I agree. I didn't quite understand how we got to the point of talking about same-sex marriage when I responded either.

It is not clear with what and with whom you are agreeing. We were talking about same-sex marriage because you responded to a point raised by Thinking critical. I then picked you up on something you wrote because I was unable to follow the reasoning. This is your first reply to me since then.

As rightly pointed out, many religious and non-religious have made this a point of morality. In some sense this supports my original point regarding the search for absolute morality. No matter what side of this issue you are on, man, left to man's own moral justifications, can make a complete mess of things and cause significant harm. This is one example...

Are you refering to when I pointed it out, after you said that it was nothing to do with God? It says absolutely nothing directly about a search for absolute morality. I am sure that, if you tried, you could draw out an argument. But you haven’t in this set of exchanges.

Regarding the source of homosexuality, I am not aware that it has been definitively concluded that is only genetically determined at birth or learned. Based on my own personal experience I have seen examples of both. One if our friends was "different" from us since we were kids and before we even knew what sex was. Another friend was perfectly straight and after a trip abroad came back and said he was gay. I don't see why this behaviour could not be taught, since society teaches so much behaviours. Even what a person perceives as attractive is taught.

So you are unable to say to what extent homosexuality is genetically determined or learned and you have two friends whose experience is different. Then, from this ‘mass’ of information you feel able to generalise that, “Even what a person perceives as attractive is taught”. I am finding it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

Despite your reservations, you were keen to tell us that, “any two people who wish to form a bond or contract should be allowed to do so” and that, “It has nothing to do with God”. Only yesterday, you stated: “I strongly agree with you that two people who want to form a special relationship should not be prohibited from doing so. I actually take it one step further and believe that any two people who wish to form a bond or contract should be allowed to do so. It should make no difference if they are both gay, heterosexual, just good friends or agree to mutual companionship. That is none of my business until someone tries to force their beliefs on me by law or intimidation”.

So you apprear to be fine with the idea of any two people forming a legal civil union. You have not explained why, then, you do not want it to be called a marriage.

Now the real test comes down to this. If you want to reach your children and grandchildren that it is just fine to be gay if they choose or that they should experiment with sexuality or maybe they dress like the opposite sex or choose their gender, then be my guest. But don't communicate that to my kids or grandchildren.

Are you trying to tell me that the things which you regard as acceptable, with which you strongly agree and which are not an issue of morality are not the things which you want to teach your children and grandchildren?! We are talking about things as they are now. Not a thousand years ago. Not in the last century. Now.

If they are like my best friend and clearly have no choice, then that is a different conversation. I will side with what societies have chosen to do across the world for centuries and teach what marriage means, religious or secular.

I thought you said, more than once, that it was nothing to do with God.

Our current generation has not demonstrated any superior intellect or knowledge giving them the wisdom or authority to change this important part of the world's predominate cultures. If I am wrong about this generation, please show me. I haven't seen it except for technology.

I don’t know what you have said about the current generation which might be wrong. What I can say is that this generation is able to build on the experience and on the successes and mistakes of previous generations, though I accept that this is no guarantee that it will. I think the “except for technology” seems like a teensy weensy afterthought, particularly when that includes the capacity to converse instantly with people of all cultures and beliefs around the world.

I can’t see that you are arguing beyond the fact that you want to keep things as they have been over the ages. As I stated before, that is an argument for slavery.

Tommarcus:

You said that the Pilgrims came to America because of the Church of England and Catholic Church. They were not fleeing the Catholic Church. That is nonsense.

It is nonsense, so why do you persist? I did not say they were fleeing the Catholic Church. That was your fabrication.

What I said was:

The pilgrims came to America because the Church of England and the Catholic Church opposed their religious beliefs. They fled because they wished to be free of external religious authority.

That the Catholic Church stood in opposition does not mean that the Catholic Church took active measures against them. That was your misunderstanding based on the fact that you did not know what Puritanism was.

In fact, as you well researched, they were themselves attacking the Catholic influence in the Church of England.

A quick Google search is not what I would consider well researched. You should have done it yourself.

They would not have attacked the Catholic influence if it was not in opposition to their religious beliefs and practices.

Enough already!