[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

Tee it up and let the big dog eat.

Murder is immoral because it deprives an innocent person of their life.
Stealing is immoral because it unjustly deprives a person of their property.
Slavery is unjust because you own yourself and are entitled to market wages for your labor.
Assault is immoral because it results in grave injury.

Do I need to go on?

Basically your argument is that if you infringe on someone else's life it's wrong? Who told you that it's wrong to infringe on another person's life? Why is that your standard of right/wrong?

Is there ever a case where it's right to infringe on someone else's life?

Cudos for admitting as much. Of course you don't have one, other than "god said so" there is no logical case to be made. That is insufficient reason for legislation in this country, and though there have been, and in some cases continue to be, laws based on that, every time they are challenged they are rightfully struck down as unconstitutional. To bad, so sad.

I don't need one. It's enough.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I don't need one.

The people defending Prop 8 thought the same thing.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Basically your argument is that if you infringe on someone else's life it's wrong? Who told you that it's wrong to infringe on another person's life?

My mother did. But, as an adult, it's inherently obvious regardless of who told me what.

I don't want to be killed. Ergo, it's reasonable that others feel that way, ergo it's reasonable that my doing so to them is bad. Ditto for all the other things on the list, and dozens of other things that were not on the list.

I don't need instructions from on high to differentiate right and wrong, merely common sense.

Is there ever a case where it's right to infringe on someone else's life?

Sure. In defense of self and others. As punishment for crimes committed. I'm sure there are other reasonable exceptions. But they are exceptions.

I don't need one. It's enough.

And that's fine, except you insist that others follow your god's morals because your god said so. The creator I believe in said no such thing.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

The people defending Prop 8 thought the same thing.

They were right, but unfortunately, the courts don't always agree with "right".

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by DentalFloss

My mother did. But, as an adult, it's inherently obvious regardless of who told me what.

What if my mom tells me different? Or anyone else's mom? In any event, to just see that it's "inherently obvious" is begging the question. How do you determine the standard?

I don't want to be killed. Ergo, it's reasonable that others feel that way, ergo it's reasonable that my doing so to them is bad. Ditto for all the other things on the list, and dozens of other things that were not on the list.

I don't need instructions from on high to differentiate right and wrong, merely common sense.


Sure. In defense of self and others. As punishment for crimes committed. I'm sure there are other reasonable exceptions. But they are exceptions.

How do you know that your feelings are correct? What if 2 different people have 2 different notions of what is "right"?

And that's fine, except you insist that others follow your god's morals because your god said so. The creator I believe in said no such thing.

I'm not arguing for a theocracy. But I am trying to understand how you think your system of morals are better than mine.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

They were right.

The court(s) say otherwise.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

The court(s) say otherwise.

The courts are wrong.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

The courts are wrong.

How can the body which sets the standard be wrong?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

How can the body which sets the standard be wrong?

Are you suggesting the courts are the one that set the standard? They didn't write the laws, and there is a reason you can appeal a court's decision.

Judges can and do make mistakes.

[DentalFloss]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

How do you determine the standard?

For christ's sake, we're going around in circles. I've explained to you over and over again. I've demonstrated how to label some acts as immoral without necessitating resorting to 'god said so'.

I've given 3 simple guidelines that, if universally followed, would result in peace, love, and harmony. Do no harm. Golden rule. Reverse golden rule. I don't need the creator to incarnate, meet (in secret) with some guy on a mountain top, and come down with a list of commandments for me to understand what is and is not moral.

(Incidentally, why wouldn't god have created the medium on which those were written to last and withstand the test of time? For a guy who craves people believing in him, that would have been a grand opportunity to leave behind some actual evidence, dontcha think?)

I'm not arguing for a theocracy. But I am trying to understand how you think your system of morals are better than mine.

If you're arguing against gay marriage on theocratic grounds, you are in fact arguing for a theocracy, and thus far those are the only grounds you've offered.