Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many, many argue that certain sexual acts and concepts are harmful to people and society...and not just, "because an old book says so".
Is that valid? They show statistics for diseases and suicide, etc...does that "prove" the harm they claim?
I am of the view that the Religious Deities do not objectively exist...so, logically, I do not consider what "he" gave us or allows...as nonexistent entities do not give or allow anything.
You know of my Pantheist view of God...discussion of the details of that was declared to be proscribed...so.
I said that human morality is not perfect. Who could have seen AIDS coming? Indeed I gather it WAS seen coming but was ignored. That doesn't make the act wrong. Just bad luck. Since then, finding ways of avoiding it rather than condemning same sex as Immoral (which they do with female same sex which is a sight better than Christianity for avoiding Aids -so you'd think that the religious concerned with morals would be all for it) would seem to be the better way forward than ignoring peoples' rights.
You're doing the usual logical confusion of practical social problems with Moral problems.
Now as to Religious deities not existing, I don't believe it either. So you must see that you agree with me all the time - human morality is the best we have, because it's all that we have.
I know that you call your views 'Pantheist'. Whether that means that you believe in a cosmic intelligence (in which case 'God' will do - if you can provide decent evidence for it) or you don't, in which case you can call it a liquorice stick or garden gnome or your aunt's teapot for all I care. I would expect 'Nature' to be comprehensible to everyone else with something to keep their ears apart other than an old tome.
You may of course try to play your old card trick of 'Intelligent just enough to do the work of nature but not so much that I have to prove anything', which is what it amounted to; but let's see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Morality and the law for hundreds of millions say the 13 year old is plenty mature enough.
Why would your morality and law objectively be more valid?
There is an argument that 13 years is old enough. or 14 at least. I rather doubt it. 15 years is on the wire and treating someone who has an affair with a 15 year - old as some kind of monster is surely overdone. 16 isn't that much more mature, but the Law has to be practical. Lower the age of consent to 13 and you may put the vulnerable at risk. Raise the age to 18 and you'd have to arrest everybody. What we have is the best solution to a moral problem. I have to say that it seems pretty fair, and those places who still have a consent age of 13 - I said that there were regional variants - have to have a long, look at why they have that statute.
So at bottom, morality plus practicality seems at the bottom of it, and I don't see your 'exceptions' as being a valid reason why that isn't the best morality (given that neither of us believe in law -giving divine beings) as being a valid objection to that.
Ps. Just out of interest.
The lowest Age of Consent in the world is 11, in Nigeria. The age of consent is 12 in the Philippines and Angola, and 13 in Burkina Faso, Comoros, Niger, and Japan.
Apart from Japan (no doubt they have their reasons) the lowest are in those places with a good, strong, religious morality. God bless 'em.
P. p . s I was surprised that Muslim countries weren't in that list. They are a bit cagey about it. The basic answer is that under 15s can marry with parents' consent. Given a degree if Interpretation that leaves, marriage in Islam is permissible at the age of 'responsibility', which is also regarded at the age of puberty. That of course is 12 -13.
I read that Saudi Arabia, Yemen and a few other Muslim places have marriage (with or without consent) at that age. Secularist countries are really letting the side down here.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-12-2019 at 03:05 PM..
I never said what my personal opinion on it was. I just stated how it really is from a logical standpoint that is free from personal preferences and emotions.
If my opinion means that much to you...It is my personal view that enslaving others is wrong.
There...ya happy now?
On a side note to that. Slaves typically were given subsistence food, clothing, and shelter for working very hard...and they could not leave without great detriment to their life. Many in this world are paid just enough to get subsistence food, clothing, and shelter for working very hard...and cannot leave without great detriment to their life. So....
Of course...my subjective personal opinion means squat. Nobodies subjective opinion means anything as to what is objectively right and wrong...as there is no such thing as something that is objectively "right" or objectively "wrong". Just how it is.
Your attempt to equate the ownership and total control over another person with having to earn a living and not be able to do whatever you want because of money limitations hasn't a hope of working.
But thank you at least for showing that you understand the superiority of human relative morality which now decries not only slavery, but discrimination and inequality, whereas Religion never had much of a problem with that at all. And that you recognise that Morality is not perfect but we try to do our best - just as you would if you needed to. Thanks to the evolution of human ethics.
You may post that human morality sucks, but you would use it, just like the rest it. Because it is the best we have and all that we have.
If my opinion means that much to you...It is my personal view that enslaving others is wrong.
There...ya happy now?
On a side note to that. Slaves typically were given subsistence food, clothing, and shelter for working very hard...and they could not leave without great detriment to their life. Many in this world are paid just enough to get subsistence food, clothing, and shelter for working very hard...and cannot leave without great detriment to their life. So....
Of course...my subjective personal opinion means squat. Nobodies subjective opinion means anything as to what is objectively right and wrong...as there is no such thing as something that is objectively "right" or objectively "wrong". Just how it is.
Actually, society's subjective opinion means everything, because that's what determines what does and doesn't get allowed in each culture. Take the difference between what is okay to do in the United States versus El Salvador. It's all about the different subjective opinion of those cultures.
Actually, society's subjective opinion means everything, because that's what determines what does and doesn't get allowed in each culture. Take the difference between what is okay to do in the United States versus El Salvador. It's all about the different subjective opinion of those cultures.
How is it ever objective? What would the objective basis be?
Which cultures condone murder outside of the law?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
