Cardie, on Dec 19 2003, 06:09 PM, said:
Yama, let me turn your argument around on you. I am assuming that as a Christian you consider rejection of the notion that Jesus Christ was the son of God a moral failing. A non-Christian rejects that notion. You therefore argue on moral grounds that this non-Christian must be excluded from a secular practice, say voting. The non-Christian argues that your church does not have to accept non-believers as members, you don't have to socialize with non-believers or even like non-believers, but that your church has no business using its beliefs to determine eligibility to vote in a secular state. You counter that there is an excellent basis for denying the non-Christian the vote because these are the precise arguments used by NAMBLA to justify pedophilia. Do you see why this sounds like a reductio ad absurdum to us now?
, your example is fatally flawed in several respects and therefore the fallacy is all yours.
The first is an assumption in your argument that marriage is strictly a secular matter (such as voting): note, I hope you aren't arguing that a church does not have the right to oppose gay mariages as a religious or doctrinal matter. But to illustrate a few of the other areas where your example fails, let's continue with the idea of voting.
My argument is not that "my church" has a right to deny non-Christians the right to vote. I argue that as an individual
I have the right to disagree with the idea that non-Christians have a right to vote. And
that I can base my opposition to the enfranchisement of non-Christians on any reason I whatsoever. Yes, even religious reasons. Even for the reasons you state above.
(Note: I don't oppose non-Christians voting. I am only using this as an example that you gave.)
Because an idea or position is based upon a particular religious viewpoint does not in any way lessen its validity in the secular or political marketplace.
Indeed, opposition to slavery in the United States was based on religious reasons. In fact, support of civil rights was based on religious principles. Do you know how many civil rights leaders were ministers and pastors and how often they "rallied the troops", discussed strategy and carried out their plans in churches and on Sundays? Beginning with the Reverend
Dr. Martin Luthor King, Jr. Are you say that their goals and activities were somehow less legitimate because they were religiously inspired (and often carried out under the robe of their clothe)?
Next, when I am pointing out that supporters of gay marriage are using the same logic and arguments that supporters of pedophilia are using, I am not arguing that such is the basis of my opposition to gay marriages. As I stated earlier, I oppose gay marriages because I think it degrades are concept of what it means to be human and ultimately does not work out to the best of society as a whole. I know that you and a far number of people in this forum disagree with me. But that is my opinion and I will argue and defend it when I must.
And notice, my opposition has nothing
to do with NAMBLA, one way or the other.
But I am pointing out that, on principle and consistently, such an argument cannot be used to support gay marriage without also supporting the arguments of NAMBLA and other pederasts for there position.
The problem is with the "first principle" assumed in support of gay marriages and by NAMBLA in support of pedophilia (and many other issues, too). Most people blindly accept it, even as they themselves constantly violate it. I reject it outright. And that "first principle" is:
No one has the right to enforce their moral standards on another, especially by using government law.
That may sound nice but in truth, that's a bunch of horse hockey. Indeed, the only thing any law
ever does is ENFORCE A MORAL STANDARD UPON THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH IT!
There are laws against rape. Why? Because the general society thinks rape is immoral
There are laws against child abuse. Why? Because the general society thinks child abuse is immoral
There are laws against killing other people. Why? Because the general society thinks killing other people is immoral
There are laws against cruelty to animals because the general society thinks being cruel to animals is immoral
Indeed, there are laws governing our current tax structure because many people think it is (a) immoral that the "rich don't pay their 'fair share'", (b) immoral that "the most productive in society must 'support the freeloaders'", or © a combination of the above.
In fact, I dare say that those in this forum who support gay marriage do so because they think denying gays the right to marry is IMMORAL
Seriously, you show me the law and I'll show you the moral component of it. Even if I may disagre with the moral conceptions behind a particular law. Seriously.
And with the inavoidable moral foundation for any law, including the secular, why can't I and others like me base our political position against gay marriage on our moral beliefs, even if they are religiously-based. Our opponents do.
And if you again say that moral positions cannot and/or should not be the bases of political positions, then again, on what bases do you oppose pedophilia and support laws that forbid it?
Edited by Yama, 21 December 2003 - 01:41 AM.