I was saying that we as fallible humans invented the Bible.
I did not say that one person wrote it.
How did we invent a set of universal rights for ourselves? We just did. Necessity is the mother of all invention.
For the kazillionth-trillionth time, this demonstrates nothing.
Lol democracy means that the government passes laws based on what the people want. It just so happens that many people are in fact religious, and the proportion of the population who holds such views is entitled to some extent see this translated into law.
Common sense tells you that gay is ok? Plox explain...
+ 1
But human rights are not essential at all...
With one hand you are using democracy in your argument and with the other you are denying others' ability to use the same argument. And the idea that if people want it to happen then it would have happened by now is non-sensical if you agree that most of society accepts homosexuality. Which you seem to, but then say that it means nothing. If all things that people wanted to happen were already in place then why would we need a legislature? Because the institutionalisation of societal belief is lagging pehaps? Just because people want something doesn't mean it has happened yet. This is really a truism.
Define "fine".
It helps us to easily identify if someone has been violated. Then we can take action if appropriate.
Ok, let me explain. What I meant was by "it means nothing" is that just because a motion is popular it isn't necessarily right (I oppose homosexuality on a moral level, which is on a separate plane to the democratically decided laws of this country). I act within the law, and I expect others to as well, but the law doesn't perfectly reflect what is right or wrong (it can't since morals differ between people), simply because something is legal doesn't make it good or right etc.
Why do you find homosexuality unacceptable?
Humans are no better than any other animal (correct me if you think otherwise), as animals we survived. Sure we had high death rates and poor living conditions overall but thats entirely irrelevant, as animals we continued to reproduce and were part of the food chain and natural cycle.
Lol... But thats the thing, I do care if something happens to others in my species, even those I will probably never meet or have anything to do with (eg. people dying in Africa). Why do I? Why should I?
If you argue this then you can never argue with the idea that lots of people don't think it is okay without being self-contradictory. And you have done this alot. 'If enough people thought it should be changed it would be changed already!'. This makes no sense. You can't argue that you are fine with democratic process acting against your beliefs and then say that this process is a reaason that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legislated. But you seem to drop arguments when refuted and pick them up at later time when convenient. And lol, how could people act outside the law with regards to homosexual marriage? They can't get married without it being legally binding.
Haha, are you sure about that? The whole point of technology and inventions is to improve our quality of life (with the exception of war materials).
Because we are animals who want the best for us. Our controlling behaviour eliminates predators, increasing our chances of survival.
There you go, you've just answered your own question.
I never said that because plenty of other people think that it is wrong, that that is in fact why it is. The reason why it is wrong is that it is morally repugnant behavior, which has nothing to do with the amount of people who happen to agree with me that it is wrong.
If it is the case where the vast majority of the population agree with something but it has yet been introduced that would reflect more as a failure of the democratic system. However usually as part of democracy there is a long period where different sides lobby the government before a decision is made (especially for things like this, where frankly it is not particularly urgent and is politically very sensitive).
I never said that... I believe it is wrong because, morally is it. It has nothing to do with the number of people who agree or disagree with my position.
That was just generally speaking, not specifically relating to gay marriage/homosexuality or anything specific at all.
Lol, you have often cited the amount of people that are religious and the idea of the democratic process as evidence that proves homosexual marriage is wrong and should not be instated. Moreover, it is only morally wrong according to your morals and that of your little book. Are we secular or not?
Not true.
Yes we are... What does this demonstrate? Are you suggesting that because someone's morals are to an extent religiously inspired that they should have no say in the democratic process? Where someone gets there morals is irrelevant, everyone with an opinion deserves the right to express it.
Though we do strive always to create better living environments and promote a 'better' or more comfortable life for all. If you only measure the differences in survival and foodchain, then you miss out all the other differences that come with being a human compared to another animal. We are still a part of the food chain, just further up the top.
Why do you doubt that what we are doing is out of the natural cycle? We look at our environment and utilise it, just like every other animal. Its just that we are more intelligent, and use tools to a greater extent to any other animal.
"Nothing like"? You contradicted yourself in that paragraph, where first you said that other animals display loyalty, surely it is something like what humans display for each other, even though it wouldnt be to that degree.
A secular society means that all ideas have equal footing whether religious or not, but the are arguing that the bible should be the authority on the definition of marriage. If you were really for relativism then you would be fine with marriage being defined as whatever people want it to be. If you really thought your views only pertained to yourself and that the majority decision was fine then you would not oppose the idea that the majority will redefine it as whatever they want. If you were really for democratic relativism you would realise that christian view on marriage is has nothing really to do with it in the sense that it is defined by the times and the people of the times.
Well, being one myself, it kind of comes naturally to accept it otherwise I would be officially the world's worst hipocrite...Name_Taken said:
Lol that's a bit like "If Life Was a Musical" by The Chaser.
lol ming back on the same day as name_taken??! something going on between you two?
Thats like saying if you are really for democratic relativism, if society pushed to legalise murder (example) then you would be more than happy to (majority permitting) accept the changing of the definition of murder to killing someone without reason - where having a reason acquits you from committing an offense...
