I'd suggest you work on your own proof that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively bad. My challenge is about as rhetorically useful as yours.
Until it's proven to me that Homosexuality is harmful or bad in some way then we can operate under the assumption that homosexuality doesn't harm people, under said assumption this makes homophobia and intolerance of gay people discriminating against a group of people that are causing no harm and may even be beneficial to society, discriminating or harming something that is harmless or beneficial is to the detriment of society as a whole.
An interesting proposition. I'd suggest you work on your own proof that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively bad. My challenge is about as rhetorically useful as yours.
Let's take the definition by Sam Harris:
"morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures"
(Source) So by discriminating against homosexual people you decrease there well-being (for obvious reasons). Not discriminating them won't harm anybody, it only increases their well-being because they can marry the person they love. Ergo, discriminating against homosexual people is not moral.
Until it's proven to me that Homosexuality is harmful or bad in some way then we can operate under the assumption that homosexuality doesn't harm people, under said assumption this makes homophobia and intolerance of gay people discriminating against a group of people that are causing no harm and may even be beneficial to society, discriminating or harming something that is harmless or beneficial is to the detriment of society as a whole.
That doesn't even begin to approach objective. Nor does Grimml's version. The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that you can't prove anything objectively in the realm of moral philosophy, and it was pointless to demand he do so.
An interesting proposition. I'd suggest you work on your own proof that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively bad. My challenge is about as rhetorically useful as yours.
because being gay doesnt harm anyone. being against gays is bad because it hurts them. not that complicated.
That doesn't even begin to approach objective. Nor does Grimml's version. The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that you can't prove anything objectively in the realm of moral philosophy, and it was pointless to demand he do so.
I'd say that Sam Harris's definition of moral is pretty good. And by that definition it's bad to discriminate homosexual people. What's your definition of moral?
its not that complicated really. things that hurt people=bad. things that help people=good. things that dont do anything (like this subject)=neutral. this is MY opinion but im sure many people if not most can agree with that?
those things happen in order to help people. things that are meant to hurt people are bad.
People protesting gay marriage are protesting it because they think it's bad. They think that by not allowing this they are helping people. They think that by changing people from gay to straight is good for them, it's intended to help. You can't simply say, "I had good intentions."
Now, this would be different if their "helping" didn't cause pain, hatred, discrimination, you name it. There is nothing to be helped. It's like saying, "Oh you've got 2 left feet, let's cut one of those off for you so you have 1, like a normal person" *chop* "There! Now you have only 1 left foot!"
I'd say that Sam Harris's definition of moral is pretty good.
"Pretty good", huh. Like I said, it doesn't even begin to approach objective. Nor will it. It is utterly useless to demand objective proof.
People protesting gay marriage are protesting it because they think it's bad. They think that by not allowing this they are helping people. They think that by changing people from gay to straight is good for them, it's intended to help.
They think they're helping. If that's not good, I don't know what is. Their actions may be vile and they may be misguided, but they are going out of their way to do what they think is right.
What's your definition of moral?
I think it's wrong to hurt people without a good reason. Revenge is never a good reason, though. I also think that doing what you feel is right is the best anyone can do.
@Meatballs. Well no one ever knew God, so we don't actually know if he was. However the bible writers argue that God considers homosexuality a sin arguably because of creationism yes.
Unfair judgement though. Incest is considered a bigger sin. So when Adam died, how did they procreate? ;]
