274 thoughts on “Irish Voters Do the Right Thing….”

1. Rumraket,

   Sorry that your comment was held for moderation. I think it was because the number of links exceeded the preset limit.

2. William J. Murray:
   If we have a norm-based morality, and if the conscience is not presumed to access a basis for morality that transcends norms, how can a good person justify defying the norms in favor of their conscience?

   OK, we need clear shared definitions for all those terms, William, if I am to understand you.

   Firstly, I am taking the view of the author of that SEP piece that morality, in the normative sense, can be defined as

   …an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.

   Given that definition, a good person can easily justify defying the norms of a society if s/he disagrees with them by appealing to reason. Just as, in Ireland, a majority of people have looked at the reasoning that hitherto barred gay people from marriage, and reasoned: we see no evidence that banning gay marriage lessens evil, and considerable evidence that allowing it will, so we vote to allow it.

3. Given that definition, a good person can easily justify defying the norms of a society if s/he disagrees with them by appealing to reason.

   Nope. Even given your contentious definition, you cannot apply reason until you have defined what “evil” and “harm” means. If what “evil” and “harm” means is defined by the norms, then you, as a good person, cannot simply override how the norms of that society define “evil” and “harm” and insert your own concept of what “evil” and “harm” means.

   Just as, in Ireland, a majority of people have looked at the reasoning that hitherto barred gay people from marriage, and reasoned: we see no evidence that banning gay marriage lessens evil, and considerable evidence that allowing it will, so we vote to allow it.

   You have absolutely no idea what the reasoning was for most of those who voted, or even if any valid reasoning was applied at all. You’re just making stuff up now to suit your views.

   Let’s say that a country’s norms holds homosexuality to be evil (contradicting what god wants) and harmful (imperils the soul for eternity). If the norms define the meaning of the terms, then by what authority does a good person defy what the norms say, defy how norms define the terms, and defy how norms frame the issue?

4. Amadan:

   [Mung ssid:]
   Interesting OP.

   Voters in Ireland did the popular thing, defined as, more voted for than against.

   Therefore, it was the right thing.

   As one of those voters, please understand that my view – and that of the great majority of others who agreed with me – has never been that simplistic.
   Rights, in a liberal democracy, are assured at the widest level of application and the minimal level of restriction. The choice of those levels should be informed by an understanding of capacity and potential consequences. In the absence of good reasons not to permit same-sex couples to marry, it is unjust to deny persons that right. In a world that stigmatises gay people simply for being gay, there is a moral argument in favour of taking a step that sends a strong normative message: in terms of their capacity and their ability to contribute to society as married people, these persons are no different from anyone else.

   This was not a fashion statement. It was not a matter of ‘liking’ something trendy on social media. This was a considered response to a long-standing injustice.

   Thank you, Amadan.

5. phoodoo:
   hotshoe_,

   You have never heard of Jim Crow laws?

   Study up and get back to me.

   I wasn’t aware that the African American community was consulted in the formulation of these laws.

6. RandomnessdoesntExist:
   hotshoe

   If something is important it doesn’t mean it is big in size. Homosexuals hurt themselfs and they spread diseases since anal sex is the most dangerous type of sex on earth, sodomy (both in straight and gays) is responsible for all the sexual diseases on earth. [bolding mine]

   Well, it is clear that you do not have a career (or basic education) in medicine, biology or any of the sciences. I only hope that you have no role in the education of children.

7. William J. Murray: Nope. Even given your contentious definition, you cannot apply reason until you have defined what “evil” and “harm” means. If what “evil” and “harm” means is defined by the norms, then you, as a good person, cannot simply override how the norms of that society define “evil” and “harm” and insert your own concept of what “evil” and “harm” means.

   I think it’s a pretty good definition. It makes a lot more sense to me than yours did.

   And you can use reason to define harm (I did not mention “evil”). Indeed you can use actual data. For instance, if you are worried about the harm that gay marriage might do to children of gay couples, you could actually collect data that compares outcomes with those of straight couples. And if you found no difference, you would have no reason to think that gay parents caused harm.

   That’s one of the reasons that gay marriage has come so rapidly on to the statute books, despite being almost unthinkable a couple of decades ago. Rational people have taken a look, thought, and concluded: hey, yeah – there’s no harm here! Let’s do it!

8. William J. Murray: Let’s say that a country’s norms holds homosexuality to be evil (contradicting what god wants) and harmful (imperils the soul for eternity). If the norms define the meaning of the terms, then by what authority does a good person defy what the norms say, defy how norms define the terms, and defy how norms frame the issue?

   Well, that just shows how useless “theism” is at defining a moral code. It’s completely subjective – depends entirely on what you imagine some god or gods want. Could be human sacrifice; could be love your neighbour as yourself.

   The only objective way is to look at actual harm done: is this person healthy, happy? Is that person sick, miserable? What caused the difference?

9. EL said:

   Well, that just shows how useless “theism” is at defining a moral code.

   I have never said that theism defines a moral code. EVER. I have said that theism serves as a sufficient grounding for the assumption that morality refers to an objective (absolute) commodity.

   It’s completely subjective – depends entirely on what you imagine some god or gods want. Could be human sacrifice; could be love your neighbour as yourself.

   How about you stop arguing against forms of theism I’m not arguing for?

   The only objective way is to look at actual harm done: is this person healthy, happy? Is that person sick, miserable? What caused the difference?

   No, it is not, EL. Depending on how you define “harm” and “evil”, you can objectively measure how many gays you have lobotomized, how many witches you have burned, how many jews are left in the world, how many infidels you have slain. You can objectively measure how many of those in your culture are rich compared to how many of other cultures and beliefs you have enslaved. There are all sorts of perfectly objective ways to measure variant concepts of moral “evil” and “harm”.

   As I said, you have slipped in by definitional fiat your definition of what “morality” refers to, and your definition of what constitutes “harm” and “evil” in factual contradiction to most of the people on the planet wrt morality (3+billion muslims and christians). If I and a group of people disagree with your definition of what morality is, and disagree with your definition of what constitutes “harm” and “evil”, by what right do you get to impose your morality on us?

   I think it’s a pretty good definition.

   Sure, because it bends the concept of morality towards your ends. Even so, it’s left your reasoning with enormously gaping holes.

   It makes a lot more sense to me than yours did.

   You mean, it makes more sense that ones I provided out of Merriam-Webster?

   And you can use reason to define harm (I did not mention “evil”).

   Your definition of morality mentions evil. You cannot use reason to define harm. Without attaching the label “harm” initially to anything at all, how exactly can you reason what to attache the label to in the first place?

   Indeed you can use actual data. For instance, if you are worried about the harm that gay marriage might do to children of gay couples, you could actually collect data that compares outcomes with those of straight couples. And if you found no difference, you would have no reason to think that gay parents caused harm.

   You are assuming your own metaphysics as reality in place of, and in spite of, the actual metaphysics of billions of people on this planet. For most of the people on this planet, morality has nothing whatsoever to do with apparent outcomes in this world. Surely you realize this?

   That’s one of the reasons that gay marriage has come so rapidly on to the statute books, despite being almost unthinkable a couple of decades ago. Rational people have taken a look, thought, and concluded: hey, yeah – there’s no harm here! Let’s do it!

   You are once again inventing convenient reasoning on the part of people whose motives are unknown to you.

   You didn’t answer my question, EL (or KN, care to take a shot?):

   Let’s say that a country’s norms holds homosexuality to be evil (contradicting what god wants) and harmful (imperils the soul for eternity). If the norms define the meaning of the terms, then by what authority does a good person defy what the norms say, defy how norms define the terms, and defy how norms frame the issue?

10. William J. Murray: I have never said that theism defines a moral code. EVER. I have said that theism serves as a sufficient grounding for the assumption that morality refers to an objective (absolute) commodity.

    Well, you post incomprehensible things such as:

    Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality.

    and when anyone asks you what the hell that is supposed to mean, you post word salad about “gleaning” something from a “commodity” of some sort.

    What does that thing you wrote on UD mean if it doesn’t mean that theism defines a moral code? Or give you one? Or allows you to “glean” one? What does it mean to say that “theism” is the “source” of what you seem to think is the only “correct” moral code?

    If “theism” is the “source” how does one set about tapping it?

11. William J. Murray: Let’s say that a country’s norms holds homosexuality to be evil (contradicting what god wants) and harmful (imperils the soul for eternity). If the norms define the meaning of the terms, then by what authority does a good person defy what the norms say, defy how norms define the terms, and defy how norms frame the issue?

    I thought I had answered this. Perhaps it didn’t post. By looking at data. Find out what harms people and what doesn’t. What makes the sicken and die; what makes them thrive. It isn’t difficult.

12. Acartia: I wasn’t aware that the African American community was consulted in the formulation of these laws.

    Why would they need to be? You are suggesting that there should be a principal in which all persons rights should be taken into account, even if they are the minority.

    Whereas Lizzie and others here have said that what the society decides, is the morality of the time. There is no basis for saying that there is an objective principal that all people’s rights should be considered. At least there is no basis for saying this, from a materialists worldview.

13. I thought I had answered this. Perhaps it didn’t post. By looking at data. Find out what harms people and what doesn’t. What makes the sicken and die; what makes them thrive. It isn’t difficult.

    You’re not answering the question. It’s understandable. It’s the question that points out the flaw in your reasoning.

14. Elizabeth,

    What is the definition of harm?

15. William J. Murray,

    If I and a group of people disagree with your definition of what morality is, and disagree with your definition of what constitutes “harm” and “evil”, by what right do you get to impose your morality on us?

    Do theists have extra rights in the Imposition department, then? If so, how does anyone (including them) know they are Really Right? If not, why even bring it up?

16. William J. Murray: You’re not answering the question. It’s understandable. It’s the question that points out the flaw in your reasoning.

    Actually, I think it’s the question that reveals the flaw in yours. My position is that “harm” is a perfectly easy thing to figure out. Theism gets in the way, of course, because people start complicating things and saying: hey but what if the gods WANT people to have their hearts removed still beating from their warm bodies? But sooner or later, it becomes apparent that that is totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, although it may take some time.

    And I do not think you need to invoke some kind of God-implanted conscience to explain why people understand that torturing babies isn’t good for them. Cut out the middle man and watch the effects yourself.

17. phoodoo:
    Elizabeth,

    What is the definition of harm?

    Something that damages something. It’s pretty plain English. If you break someone’s leg, you harm them. If you poison them, you harm them. If you maltreat them so that they cannot function as a thriving human being, then you harm them.

18. phoodoo,

    Why would they need to be? You are suggesting that there should be a principal in which all persons rights should be taken into account, even if they are the minority.

    Whereas Lizzie and others here have said that what the society decides, is the morality of the time.

    Which is precisely not what Lizzie and others have said. It really isn’t hard to read people’s words, try to understand them and not twist them. An absolute piece of cake. Give it a go.

19. Allan Miller,

    Do you agree with Lizzie that society can easily decide what causes harm? So when Saudi Arabia says that it harms people by letting woman drive or go swimming, they must certainly be correct-because their society has said so?

20. Elizabeth,

    If you prevent someone from doing what they want, are you harming them? What if that thing you want to do bothers someone else?

21. phoodoo: Saudi Arabia says

    Saudi Arabia says nothing. Saudi society is autocratic and dominated by men. Women have no public voice in that society.

22. phoodoo: If you prevent someone from doing what they want, are you harming them? What if that thing you want to do bothers someone else?

    Are you as thick as you appear, phoodoo? There’s a balance of harm. In an ideal society, everyone would be free to do as they wish unless, in doing so, they cause harm to others. This is basic human rights.

23. phoodoo,

    Do you agree with Lizzie that society can easily decide what causes harm? So when Saudi Arabia says that it harms people by letting woman drive or go swimming, they must certainly be correct-because their society has said so?

    There you go again. I point out that you are twisting words, and you give them another yank. Morality is not decided by majority vote, even under subjectivism. No-one has advocated that it is. I’ll let that sink in.

    Do you favour the death penalty? Simple yes or no will suffice. I don’t, under any circumstances. Yet vox pop polls consistently come out marginally in favour. Am I therefore retreating from a previous stance where I said that the majority should evaluate net ‘harm? No. Because I never advocated that position in the first place.

24. Allan Miller:
    phoodoo,

    Which is precisely not what Lizzie and others have said. It really isn’t hard to read people’s words, try to understand them and not twist them. An absolute piece of cake. Give it a go.

    Perhaps it is you who needs to read Lizzies words and comprehend (although I agree her words can be misleading): Quote

    “Whereas the non-theistic version has the benefit of being the result of a consensus view on the goal of a moral system (minimise harm, for instance), supported by actual evidence of what actions are best suited to achieving it.”

    SO…….if there is a consensus view (again we know there is no consensus view on anything, so actually she must mean a majority view) that the goal of a societies moral system is to please the most people of their society, or even to please the strongest members of their society, by Lizzies own standard, that is a benefit. Not causing harm to anyone is only one of the possible goals of a moral system, certainly not a necessary one.

25. William J. Murray: You are assuming your own metaphysics as reality in place of, and in spite of, the actual metaphysics of billions of people on this planet. For most of the people on this planet, morality has nothing whatsoever to do with apparent outcomes in this world.

    Such a morality is then totally worthless to human beings. If it is not chielfly concerned with human wellbeing, morality is useless and without meaning. You might as well argue about your favorite color.

26. phoodoo: Whereas Lizzie and others here have said that what the society decides, is the morality of the time. There is no basis for saying that there is an objective principal that all people’s rights should be considered. At least there is no basis for saying this, from a materialists worldview.

    Neither is there on theism. No property of god entails we must consider all people’s. You can’t derive an ought from an is. It can’t be done.

27. phoodoo:
    Allan Miller,

    Do you agree with Lizzie that society can easily decide what causes harm?So when Saudi Arabia says that it harms people by letting woman drive or go swimming, they must certainly be correct-because their society has said so?

    It isn’t “society” that decides, it is the empirically discoverable objective facts of the world. We can actually collect data on these questions and use it to refute the Saudi Arabian position.

    It does not, in point of fact, harm women to let them drive and go swimming. It’s the other way around. “Society” doesn’t decide this, hard real-world evidence does.

28. phoodoo:
    Elizabeth,

    If you prevent someone from doing what they want, are you harming them? What if that thing you want to do bothers someone else?

    We would have to assess that on a case-by-case basis. There is no simple fits-all answer, so it depends.

29. Elisabeth

    What is true is that multiple sexual partners increases the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But that is usually advanced as an argument FOR marriage, not against it.

    Are homosexuals virgin before their marriage?
    Are married homosexuals always protected?

30. Well, it is clear that you do not have a career (or basic education) in medicine, biology or any of the sciences. I only hope that you have no role in the education of children.

    Well, it is clear that you think that sexual diseases pop into existence out of nowhere..

    The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing.
    The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.
    The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.
    The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.
    Anal sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other infections. For heterosexual couples, pregnancy can occur if semen is deposited near the opening to the vagina.

    Even though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that requires immediate medical attention. Treatment involves a hospital stay, surgery, and antibiotics to prevent infection.

    Diseases which were created and trasmited due to anal sex (some of them out of the millions)

    syphilis
    Neisseria gonorrhoeae
    Klebsiella granulomatis
    Chlamydia trachomatis
    Haemophilus ducreyi

    Anal sex is like a lottery machine with bacteria, the lucky one will became a disease!

31. phoodoo:
    Allan Miller,

    Do you agree with Lizzie that society can easily decide what causes harm?So when Saudi Arabia says that it harms people by letting woman drive or go swimming, they must certainly be correct-because their society has said so?

    Well, just look at the data. When women drive, are they harmed? No. When women go swimming, are they harmed any more than anyone else? No.

    Are women harmed when they are prevented from driving? Clearly, yes. Are they harmed when they are prevented from gong swimming? Clearly yes.

    So the objective evidence is clear: there is no reason to prohibit either of these things.

    Theism only obscures things.

32. RandomnessdoesntExist: Well, it is clear that you think that sexual diseases pop into existence out of nowhere..

    You seem very obsessed with anal sex and sexually transmitted diseases, RdE. I thought we were talking about gay marriage.

33. Elizabeth: You seem very obsessed with anal sex and sexually transmitted diseases, RdE.I thought we were talking about gay marriage.

    Funny innit?

    You ask people to visualize marriage and you get a whole spectrum of thoughts. A young couple on their first date, sharing their first kiss. The proposal while kneeling. The hectic bliss of the wedding itself. The honeymoon. The setting up a home together. All the trials and tribulations that come with life – supporting each other through the loss of a job, or a parent’s passing, or a debilitating illness. Having and raising children either through birth or adoption. Growing old together. Knowing that you have a permanent bond with your best friend. 🙂

    You ask some people to visualize same sex marriage and all they can talk about is butt sex.

34. RandomnessdoesntExist:
    Anal sex is like a lottery machine with bacteria, the lucky one will became a disease!

    So every one should use condoms, get regularly tested if they are highly promiscous and maybe switch it up with some fellatio and reciprocal handjobs is what you’re saying?

    You’re pro-comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptives, right?

35. By the way, randomness clearly exists.

36. Adapa: Funny innit?

    You ask people to visualize marriage and you get a whole spectrum of thoughts. A young couple on their first date, sharing their first kiss. The proposal while kneeling. The hectic bliss of the wedding itself. The honeymoon. The setting up a home together. All the trials and tribulations that come with life – supporting each other through the loss of a job, or a parent’s passing, or a debilitating illness. Having and raising children either through birth or adoption. Growing old together. Knowing that you have a permanent bond with your best friend.

    You ask some people to visualize same sex marriage and all they can talk about is butt sex.

    You can almost taste the rectal penetration desire from some of these nutters.

37. WJM: Could you answer the question: ‘How do you know if a given moral position is objectively right?”
    Its got nothing to with us heathens, or what the law of the land is, its a simple question to you re your concept of objective morality. You have been asked the question over and over and over, and you just keep evading it.

    Could you just answer the dammed question ?

38. graham2:
    WJM: Could you answer the question: ‘How do you know if a given moral position is objectively right?”
    Its got nothing to with us heathens, or what the law of the land is, its a simple question to you re your concept of objective morality. You have been asked the question over and over and over, and you just keep evading it.

    Could you just answer the dammed question ?

    I’ve never avoided it. I’ve answered it directly several times. I use my conscience and reasoning.

39. EL said:

    Actually, I think it’s the question that reveals the flaw in yours. My position is that “harm” is a perfectly easy thing to figure out. Theism gets in the way, of course, because people start complicating things and saying: hey but what if the gods WANT people to have their hearts removed still beating from their warm bodies? But sooner or later, it becomes apparent that that is totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, although it may take some time.

    And I do not think you need to invoke some kind of God-implanted conscience to explain why people understand that torturing babies isn’t good for them. Cut out the middle man and watch the effects yourself.

    You’re still not answering the question. I wonder why?

40. Allan said:

    Do theists have extra rights in the Imposition department, then? If so, how does anyone (including them) know they are Really Right? If not, why even bring it up?

    You’re not answering the question either. I wonder why?

    I can tell you why, easy enough. There are only two answers. The only reason EL or you or anyone else has the right to defy norms if your conscience tells you to is either (1) conscience, as a personal, subjective feeling, trumps norms, and all this argument about norms is nothing but hand-waving and self-deception, or (2) there must be something that, as KN said, transcends norms that we can perceive that gives us the authority to defy norms – to defy groups, community, society, culture, even the whole bloody world should our conscience require it, even to our own peril.

    There’s really no other option. So we see, “moral norms” is just a comforting lie materialists tell themselves so they don’t have to choose between the brutal anarchy of “because I feel like it, because I can”, which they know is wrong, and god, which they cannot tolerate.

41. Rumraket:

    [Adapa said:] Funny, innit?
    …You ask some people to visualize same sex marriage and all they can talk about is butt sex.

    You can almost taste the rectal penetration desire from some of these nutters.

    Well, no, I’m not a fan of that particular trope. I don’t see any reason to assume that a rigidly-religious hater of homosexuals is covering for a secret desire for his/her own anal penetration.

    But this is a good moment to point out that
    1) gay sex is not anal sex. It looks like the figures vary over time and from different countries, but oral and mutual masturbation are always more common types of sex among gay men with gay male partners. Again, depending on the time and location, some percentage ranging from 10 to 90% of gay men will never have anal sex once in their lifetimes.

    and

    2) anal sex is not gay sex. According to the most recent US CDC study, almost a majority (44%) of straight men under age 44 have had (heterosexual) anal sex at least once. This was the question “Have you ever put your penis in a female’s rectum or butt (also known as anal sex)? ”
    For heterosexual women the figure is 36% answering yes for the complementary question: “Has a male ever put his penis in your rectum or butt (also known as anal sex)? ”
    Which does sorta beg the question how to resolve the 8% discrepancy between male and female answers — but it’s at least a ballpark figure for how popular anal sex is among both men and women who are not gay.

    I know that Randomnessdoesn’texist is not a bigot merely because of lack of information. But their particular form of anti-homosexual panic is extra awful because it’s wrapped in so much misinformation.

    So I hope a little more unbiased info will help.

    Like Rumraket said, the answer is comprehensive sex ed and everyone using condoms. The answer is certainly not hating on a whole class of people because you’re squeamish about butt sex.

42. Elizabeth,

    Lizzie,

    We are not concerned about the individual being harmed, we are concerned about the harm to society, right? This is a society decision right? Society doesn’t need to worry about one individuals suffering, if it is good for the rest of society, isn’t that the case?

    Where would you get this arbitrary concept of the individuals needs mattering?

43. WJM:

    I use my conscience and reasoning

    So you are left exactly where us heathens are: you are relying on your own (subjective) reasoning. Someone is going round in circles.

44. graham 2:

    I use my conscience and reasoning

    I expect virtually everyone does (besides sociopaths), regardless of their professed metaphysics.

    So you are left exactly where us heathens are: you are relying on your own (subjective) reasoning. Someone is going round in circles.

    Nope. The point is not that we both use conscience and reasoning, but rather what we each think conscience and reasoning are, and what we think they refer to. And then, whether those views are consistent with our arguments and actions.

45. Lane Craig claims that objective morality comes from god, and I think this is how most theists think. The situation is then simple (from the theists point of view): Objective morality is a set of principles set in stone, by god. Any moral question at all can then be referred to this standard, and voila! out pops the answer: gay marriage is evil, or whatever.

    The problem the heathens have, and that WJM doesn’t seem to understand, is why is our reading of the great objective-morality-in-the sky so unreliable? Are we always in a bad reception area ?

46. Acartia:
    RB: “The beauty and cuteness of a man marrying a woman is made ugly by same sex marriage being allowed.”

    It is this argument, and others similar to this, that I don’t understand. How is my marriage made any less meaningful because we allow same sex couples to Marry?Anyone who thinks this must have a low opinion of their own marriage to start with. I have been married for over thirty years. Even if we opened up marriage to inanimate objects, my marriage would be just as strong.

    Yes. inanimate objects would also turn the glory and beauty of marriage into a worthless thing.
    Marriage was only created for a man and woman. Otherwise it doesn’t exist.
    Or rather the reality of a man/woman becoming a special team was noted by society and given the name marriage.
    Gap union/inanimate unions rejects and destroys this.
    Your marriage is defined by your idenity and your wife.
    Its not just the two people that you are. not just friends.
    its a unique relationship.
    Same sex kills this.
    If you say its a new model and anything is beautiful then the opposite sexes is no longer uniquely beautiful.

47. William J. Murray,

    Me: Do theists have extra rights in the Imposition department, then? If so, how does anyone (including them) know they are Really Right? If not, why even bring it up?

    WJM: You’re not answering the question either. I wonder why?

    What question? I was picking up a particular point you made. I had questions of my own. You didn’t answer. I wonder why?

48. William J. Murray,

    There’s really no other option. So we see, “moral norms” is just a comforting lie materialists tell themselves so they don’t have to choose between the brutal anarchy of “because I feel like it, because I can”, which they know is wrong, and god, which they cannot tolerate.

    Again with the false dichotomy. We may have a shared genetic disposition inclining us against harm and towards kindness within our immediate group. A capacity which would have stood us in good stead, as our ancestors benefited from the advantages of sociality and so do we. Ever considered that?

49. phoodoo,

    (quoting Lizzie) “Whereas the non-theistic version has the benefit of being the result of a consensus view on the goal of a moral system (minimise harm, for instance), supported by actual evidence of what actions are best suited to achieving it.”

    The fact that word ‘consensus’ was used does not make appeal to consensus the means by which an action is deemed ‘right’. Suppose we all had a vote on a particular moral issue. How would we know which way to vote, since we didn’t know what the consensus was until the vote was in? What would we do about our prior opinion, if we ended up in the minority? Your argument about Saudi women is particularly inapt – how do you get a true consensus on subjugating 50% of the population?

    We can come to consensus agreement on what our individual moralities tell us is ‘right’. We can also disagree, and be in the minority when we do so. Is this really so hard?

50. William J. Murray: Nope. The point is not that we both use conscience and reasoning, but rather what we each think conscience and reasoning are, and what we think they refer to. And then, whether those views are consistent with our arguments and actions.

    And if we think that “conscience” is our capacity to seek to avoid actions that cause harm, even when those actions would benefit us personally, and that “reasoning” includes the capacity to figure out the consequences of our actions at some future date and from some different point of view (what is sometimes called “theory of mind capacity) then that view is entirely consistent with arguments and actions that refer to “morality”, and the importance of “doing the right thing”.

    No appeal to theism is required.