Maybe this is a better question, and a good place to pick up: do you think humans can have total access to what one would describe as the objective moral truth?
Honestly, I dont think I understand the concept of "objective moral truth" well enough to answer your question.
I'm not trying to avoid the question, but I would do a terrible job defending any answer because the wording of the question itself is open to interpretation.
I believe there may be something like an objective moral truth, but I don't believe that humans have perfect access to it. In fact, I think the easiest and most common sense place to start with the assumption of human fallibility.
And when addressing practical political questions, like whether to allow gays to marry, the question is best answered in the realms of the political and the practical, not in the metaphysical.
In other words, I don't think what we know -- and don't know -- about homosexuality should be overruled by what we think we know about what God demands of homosexuals. Because we don't have access to that. We may think we do, but we don't.
Now, you think you do have that access, and it should overrule secular considerations -- or even spiritual interpretations that you don't agree with.
Now, you think you do have that access, and it should overrule secular considerations -- or even spiritual interpretations that you don't agree with.
And that's where we're stuck.
Not at all. I personally oppose gay marriage based on the current tax laws.
I do not oppose gay sex by people that do not profess to be Christian. I do not oppose the right of people to disagree with me.
I do support the right of people that believe gay marriage to be immoral to oppose government support of gay relationships and commitments on a level equal with heterosexual marriage.
I do not fully understand your view that we know something about homosexuality that should trump our metaphysical views on it.
So if there were no tax advantages you would support gay marriage? I don't think your disapproval can be completely chalked up to your public finance concerns. It seems your concerns are primarily religious. Am I wrong about this?
And no one is arguing in here about people's right to approve or disapprove, or to agree or disagree, so that's not really important to note. (It's a nice sentiment, anyway.)
So, let's talk about what we know about homosexuality then. Maybe we could agree on these few things:
- it's an innate sexual orientation that is not chosen. - it's constant in all human populations - it is not considered a medical disorder - homosexuals are just as capable or incapable of commitment as heterosexuals are. - Outside of sexual considerations, homosexuals are equally beneficial or detrimental to society in the workplace, in the community, etc.
I know. And that's part of my problem. I feel like I should be arguing this with someone else. Certainly I'd like there to be equal treatment, but civil unions contain all the same rights and that's almost enough for me. And it'd certainly be an improvement.
I think your view of sexuality is antiquated and overly-restrictive, but those are your views and you're certainly free to have them. And you don't even think they should be imposed on anyone else.
So you're not really the problem. I'd love to get you to dismiss concerns about homosexuality within your faith so that people like my friend could feel like they were accepted part of the Christian community and equal parts of God's creation, but I don't imagine that's going to happen, so...
I guess I'll just appeal to you to keep asking questions, and I'll agree to do the same.
Who knows? Maybe I'll end up thinking any sex before marriage is a sin some day, and that all homosexual sex is a sin, and that homosexuals should remain celibate if they want to be good Christians.
But I doubt it. Almost as much as I doubt that I'll ever be able to change your mind.
I believe there may be something like an objective moral truth, but I don't believe that humans have perfect access to it. In fact, I think the easiest and most common sense place to start with the assumption of human fallibility.
I dont recall if I ever asked you directly, Do you believe in God/god?
Sometimes I think about the questions we've been discussing, or look at what I see through a telescope, or marvel at the complexity of the human body, and think there must be something greater than ourselves.
And sometimes I think about the questions we've been discussing, or look at what I see through a telescope, or marvel at the complexity of the human body, and think, "Holy shit. We're completely alone."
One may be more comforting than the other. But that may also help explain why it endures.
I have no idea. One answer is as baffling as the other.
Well, if you believe we're only capable of understanding a tiny fraction of it, if any of it, then it'd probably be a better idea to try and understand the natural world than God, no?
I dont think that those are mutually exclusive. I expect to only understand a tiny fraction of nature before I die. Thousands of years of science, and even the most brilliant man alive today understands a fraction of the world he lives in. But we press on.
