California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Morality is not objective. Everyone (or nearly everyone, let's exclude psychopaths for the moment) has their own morals which have, in part, a biological basis, but not totally. Our biology also gives us some flexibility which society and individual experiences shape. We have societies by virtue of the fact that biology keeps a high proportion of our morals alike (e.g. notions that there's something wrong with killing, cheating, theft, etc.).

Just because we all have our own morals doesn't mean there's something wrong with wanting to impose yours on others (the extent to which one should do so is a moral question in itself). I'm going to impose my morals on those I interact with to some extent, as they will me. That is, my morals will affect how I interact with them.

Statements about morality aren't objectively correct or incorrect like statements about reality are. Right and wrong have to be defined with respect to some value system, and the one that I'm going to use to judge everyone else's by is my own. I realize they'll do the same, and as a society, we have to work out some kind of utilitarian compromise. If your value system is very different from mine, I can't say you're objectively wrong, but I will judge you, and that will affect how I treat you.

Ok, what is value? Value is subjective. If value is subjective, then the statement that postmodernism destroys value is a subjective statement of "I dislike postmodernism", and if the refutation of postmodernism is essentially postmodern, then, well, I just don't know what to say. Frankly though, I have not emphasized linguistic gymnastics so much as recognized subjectivity and practiced skepticism, both of which can be legitimately recognized, and if you do not like what I say then try to refute the skeptical arguments. I have not denied the use of logic at all through most of this, nor have I tried attacking dictionaries. The issue is that you have denied the existence of higher morality, but you aren't trying to fully establish a system that deals with the non-existence of that, as you seem to not take your own logic to its conclusions. Even though you may hate oscuria's position, I don't think he is so inconsistent to his own ideas.

As for gay marriage, I wonder how much it would annoy people if I married a gay illegal alien. I have a friend that fits that description here in CA. I know another who currently lives in TX if the first one refuses. Hmmm...


(Just kidding; it's not worth it to enter into such a contract just to annoy people for amusement.)

Meh, why exclude psychopaths? Isn't that merely an exclusion based upon your own moral biases?

Well, your morals impacting how you interact is not an imposition. An imposition is where your actions act as a force upon them. I mean, I understand your point, but to say that seems sloppy to me if we are operating under methodological individualism due to the freedom of association. If individuals are free to associate, then interactions are free to exist or not exists, and therefore all unforced interactions would not be considered an imposition.

Well, right, an efficient compromise, which will likely be reasonably utilitarian depending upon the mechanisms used. Some mechanisms will skew the situation further away from or closer to utilitarianism and the same with one's own personal beliefs.

Maybe. But I don't think all preferences are the same as feelings that something is moral or immoral, and I'm not certain whether they have the latter.



Free association is limited in practice. And sometimes my morals will cause me to support forced interactions (as through law).

See, that's exactly what worries me. The prospect of homosexual rape. Homosexual gang-rape. Seriously, I would not want to experience that under any circumstances.


Yes, there are pedophiles hiding in the ranks of the Catholic Church. That is no secret. Do I approve of it? No, I do not. I respect the victims and their families. I would not disrespect them, make light of their suffering, and do further injustice to the Church.

BTW when I said Death to Black Culture, I was referring to its currently destructive and cannibalistic mode. Jesus loves all cultures, but not all cultures are healthy.

Well, somewhat, the biggest limitation would perhaps be a monopoly setting, and few things are total monopolies where specific individuals MUST deal with the monopolist. I am not denying the latter though.


Well, um... I think homosexual rape already happens. So, how does this legal change necessarily change the level of rape in society? I would think that the rape level would remain constant, or even perhaps decline given how much rape is based upon a desire for power.

Yes, I know that homosexual rape already happens. I am aware of it and do not want it to ever happen to me!

Well, then your validity of your questions is subjective. The words you use are subjective. Your postmodernist thoughts are also a construct, and so hold no value. Where do we go from there? Nowhere, because you inherently deny everything. There is no point of you even being in this discussion, as your statements themselves have no validity under your logic system.

I don't get the reference.

heterosexual people enjoy sodomy as well you know.

Nice try. You started it.



See? How immature.



It's neither correct nor incorrect, it's...a penis in a hole. I certainly won't engage in the act but to think that God, in all his infinite omnipotence, gives a damn if some people do is a level of silliness that I won't even think to humor.



This is an exquisite point. And outlines the homophobic bullshittery even more.

Last edited by Phagocyte on 16 May 2008, 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

LOL, AwesomelyGlorious is on his Moral Relativism kick again!

And if you accept that, then you must yourself be postmodern. Really though, you aren't postmodern and do seek something objective, so to do that, you must analyze how the subjective nature of things relates to the objective nature of things. Frankly though, you haven't refuted what I said, only stated that nobody has to value anything I say, which is true, nobody does(I never said anything against non-contradiction or any logical rule to my memory in the last statements). My logic system has never stated that there is no such thing as correct or incorrect in terms of logic though.

Frankly though, Esceurd has stated things that essentially are the heart of my framework and he does not seem to show my odd postmodern/existential/relativist/whatever streak in past discussions, which seems to me to mean that I am not actually stating something to be lampooned as you do, but rather a valid assertion on the way things work.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 16 May 2008, 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.