Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

4thTimeLucky · 06-13-2003, 02:31 PM

My goodness.
Someone who actually sounds like they know what they're talking about. And can spell. And use paragraphs. And structure.

Are you sure you're on the right board manalone?

Enough arselicking.
Can I just jot down a few premises of your argument and the conclusion:

P1) There should be a de jure separation of church and state.
P2) The will of the people should be represented by those they elect. That is democracy.
P3) That includes their moral beliefs.
P4) There are a significant number of Christians in America.
P5) There can therefore be a de facto integration of church and state.
P6) The Bible would indicate that homosexual acts are sinful and marriage is between a man and a woman.
P7) There are fundamental human rights, formed on a humanist and natural justice basis.
P8) One of these human rights is equality (of some form or another).
P9) Marriage gives important economic and social benefits.
P10) Sexuality is not a moral constraint (unlike sex, consent and age).

C1 (from P1,7,8,9,10): Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Okay, a few thoughts:
P7 - Can you just assume that human rights arise from natural justice and not God?

P3 - Should the state reflect the moral beliefs of its citizens? Issues on which this does not occur in the UK: capital punishment and War on Iraq. One reason for this is that British MPs believe that they are elected to represent the welfare of their constituents and not their individual beliefs. In other words, we elect the wise among us to make decisions for all of us.

P8 - Equality will need to be defined further. For example: If equality means the government should show equal regard to the beliefs, liberty and happiness of all, then how does it weigh John's deep disgust at the thought of the state condoning homosexual acts with Dave's deep disgust at the thought of the state not condoning homosexual acts.

P10 - Aren't you just begging the question? The Bible says that three main types of sexual act are wrong: sodomy, bestiality and rape - and this moral trinity has been preserved in the Western Christian tradition for the last 2,000 years. As paedophilia is a specific case of rape (because informed consent can never be given) then its addition seems unproblematic. But what lets you remove sexuality/sodomy from the trinity of "obvious moral constraints"?

Is not equally possible from your premises to draw the following conclusion:

C2 (from P 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support antidisestablishmentarianism. I just want to make sure that the right argument wins the day.

06-13-2003, 02:31 PM	#104 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	My goodness. Someone who actually sounds like they know what they're talking about. And can spell. And use paragraphs. And structure. Are you sure you're on the right board manalone? Enough arselicking. Can I just jot down a few premises of your argument and the conclusion: P1) There should be a de jure separation of church and state. P2) The will of the people should be represented by those they elect. That is democracy. P3) That includes their moral beliefs. P4) There are a significant number of Christians in America. P5) There can therefore be a de facto integration of church and state. P6) The Bible would indicate that homosexual acts are sinful and marriage is between a man and a woman. P7) There are fundamental human rights, formed on a humanist and natural justice basis. P8) One of these human rights is equality (of some form or another). P9) Marriage gives important economic and social benefits. P10) Sexuality is not a moral constraint (unlike sex, consent and age). C1 (from P1,7,8,9,10): Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Okay, a few thoughts: P7 - Can you just assume that human rights arise from natural justice and not God? P3 - Should the state reflect the moral beliefs of its citizens? Issues on which this does not occur in the UK: capital punishment and War on Iraq. One reason for this is that British MPs believe that they are elected to represent the welfare of their constituents and not their individual beliefs. In other words, we elect the wise among us to make decisions for all of us. P8 - Equality will need to be defined further. For example: If equality means the government should show equal regard to the beliefs, liberty and happiness of all, then how does it weigh John's deep disgust at the thought of the state condoning homosexual acts with Dave's deep disgust at the thought of the state not condoning homosexual acts. P10 - Aren't you just begging the question? The Bible says that three main types of sexual act are wrong: sodomy, bestiality and rape - and this moral trinity has been preserved in the Western Christian tradition for the last 2,000 years. As paedophilia is a specific case of rape (because informed consent can never be given) then its addition seems unproblematic. But what lets you remove sexuality/sodomy from the trinity of "obvious moral constraints"? Is not equally possible from your premises to draw the following conclusion: C2 (from P 2, 3, 4, 5, 6): Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Don't get me wrong, I don't support antidisestablishmentarianism. I just want to make sure that the right argument wins the day. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-13-2003 at 02:54 PM..