Views on Homosexuality in my Scripture Class

[ehra]

So are you actually going to reply to the valid objection to the argument you're making for a change? Or keep dodging?

[theseoafs]

If his lack of a response to my gigantic post is any indication, he's going to keep dodging.

[Omega]

So are you actually going to reply to the valid objection to the argument you're making for a change? Or keep dodging?

Ehra, if a definition of something (morality, marriage, etc) is purely subjective, then such linguistic constructs lose all meaning because then any meaning that could be ascribed to them would be acceptable. Morality "for you" might mean this. Morality "for me" might mean this. Thus the word "morality" has lost all its meaning and is then, ultimately, subject to complete human subjectivity and is then meaningless and arbitrary. A true reflection of Thrasymachus you are.

[Adami]

And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.

[ehra]

It's "arbitrary" in the sense that there's no objectively right answer. You're trying to then extrapolate from there and say that, since there's no objective answer, everyone must be accepting of every possibility. That's not what the word subjective means.

Morality "for you" might mean this. Morality "for me" might mean this. Thus the word "morality" has lost all its meaning and is then, ultimately, subject to complete human subjectivity

Once again, your argument for why something can't be subjective is because that would mean it'd be subjective.

If anything that's subjective is meaningless and arbitrary then what on earth possessed you to sign up to a fansite dedicated to a band?

[theseoafs]

This is all quite beside the point. Omega's arguments are so needlessly philosophical and hypothetical that I don't even know what his stance on homosexuality is anymore.

[Omega]

And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.

Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct. In fact, any definition ascribed to it would not be either correct nor incorrect.

[Adami]

And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.

Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct. In fact, any definition ascribed to it would not be either correct nor incorrect.

It does, because we decided it was correct. Omega, you're just never going to understand this. I'll let the others repeat it for you 100 times.

[ehra]

Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct.

You mean a subjective view isn't objectively correct? No way!


I don't know if this is some crappy arguing technique you've come up with to annoy people into not arguing anymore so you can convince yourself you're right or you honestly don't understand what the word subjective means, but either way I think it's pretty clear you don't have any place making comments about other people's logic or argumentative skills in the future.

[Omega]

And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.

Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct. In fact, any definition ascribed to it would not be either correct nor incorrect.

It does, because we decided it was correct. Omega, you're just never going to understand this. I'll let the others repeat it for you 100 times.

No, Adami, it doesn't.

Suppose two separate groups arrive at what they consider to be a "correct" definition of a word. Which group holds the correct definition? Group 1? Group 2? Neither? Both?

Asserting options 1-3 lead to an objective definition of a word, and so attempts to redefine it would be truly wrong.
Asserting option 4 leads to any such word as being completely arbitrary.

[Omega]

It's "arbitrary" in the sense that there's no objectively right answer. You're trying to then extrapolate from there and say that, since there's no objective answer, everyone must be accepting of every possibility. That's not what the word subjective means.

Morality "for you" might mean this. Morality "for me" might mean this. Thus the word "morality" has lost all its meaning and is then, ultimately, subject to complete human subjectivity

Once again, your argument for why something can't be subjective is because that would mean it'd be subjective.

If anything that's subjective is meaningless and arbitrary then what on earth possessed you to sign up to a fansite dedicated to a band?

Ehra, you're proving to be rather obstinate and I think this post illustrates your misunderstanding of the terms and implications of subjective, arbitrary and objective. I think it apt to follow Socrates' example and ignore you for the time being, Thrasymachus.

[ehra]

Fantastic argument backing up your previous claims. Bravo.

[7StringedBeast]

I like how Omega is so opposed to gay marriage that he is just running everyone through hoops to try to discredit gay marriage.

[theseoafs]

Omega: If gays are allowed to marry, then marriage becomes arbitrary and meaningless!
Everyone: But Omega, marriage is already arbitrary and meaningless.
Omega: YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ARBITRARY MEANS I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU

[SeRoX]

I like how Omega is so opposed to gay marriage that he is just running everyone through hoops to try to discredit gay marriage.

Yeah, I'm beginning to be omegafobic.

[yeshaberto]

knock off the bashing!
NOW!

[Omega]

Omega: If gays are allowed to marry, then marriage becomes arbitrary and meaningless!
Everyone: But Omega, marriage is already arbitrary and meaningless.
Omega: YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ARBITRARY MEANS I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU

Haha.

Instead of me responding that, though, a more adequate response would be:

Omega: Ok, then if marriage is arbitrary and meaningless, then what's to stop me from defining marriage as anything I (or anyone) so desire? Would anything not be able to be defined as marriage? No. Animal-Human "marriage"? Sure. Incestuous "marriage"? Sure. Necrophilic "marriage"? Sure. If there ever was a way to defeat your own reasoning...

And the hostility. Quite telling. Indignation is the soul's defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause.

[bosk1]

In case that warning was not clear, it is not only directed at Omega, but also at the rest of you who are attacking him.  It needs to stop from both directions.

Omega, given that you pretty much just disregarded Yesh's warning, this is the last you will be warned before being shown the door.

[theseoafs]

Omega: If gays are allowed to marry, then marriage becomes arbitrary and meaningless!
Everyone: But Omega, marriage is already arbitrary and meaningless.
Omega: YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ARBITRARY MEANS I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU

Haha.

Instead of me responding that, though, a more adequate response would be:

Omega: Ok, then if marriage is arbitrary and meaningless, then what's to stop me from defining marriage as anything I (or anyone) so desire? Would anything not be able to be defined as marriage? No. Animal-Human "marriage"? Sure. Incestuous "marriage"? Sure. Necrophilic "marriage"? Sure. If there ever was a way to defeat your own reasoning...

Not really. Just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it can mean anything and everything. People see colors differently, for example. One man's blue may be another's purple. The disparity, however, doesn't mean we can define blue as "fish". Subjectivity doesn't mean that something is all things. People have been saying this to you for several pages.

You're still working off the assumption that marriage, as it is now, is significant and nonarbitrary in some way. I'm not going to write out my initial response again, because it's a page back and ready to be read, but just answer me: how could something nonarbitrary change as much as marriage has? If marriage is so embedded in the natural order of things as you claim, how could it be so different today than it was one, two, three thousand years ago? It becomes extremely obvious when looked through this lens that marriage is a purely social construct.

So, marriage is invented. Arbitrary. Marriage is just a formal commitment to one other person with some legal consequences. Marriage is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean marriage is anything. Animals, corpses, and children are still not involved because these are all things that cannot consent. This remains the same even if you allow homosexual marriage, because homosexuality does not negate consent.

[Ħ]

Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.

Incorrect.  There are indeed several cases defining corporations as "persons"--for very limited purposes.  There are also many other purposes and circumstances where the law is clear that they are not treated the same as "persons."  The problem is that you are zeroing in on the word "person" and using that term differently than how the law uses it in those circumstances.  A corporation is a legal entity with certain rights and obligations.  In some areas, those rights and obligations overlap those imposed on individual human persons.  In others, they do not and are quite different.

Okay. Well, isn't that a bit inconsistent? If a corporation isn't a person in one scenario, it shouldn't a person in any scenario (and vice versa).

[theseoafs]

Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.

Incorrect.  There are indeed several cases defining corporations as "persons"--for very limited purposes.  There are also many other purposes and circumstances where the law is clear that they are not treated the same as "persons."  The problem is that you are zeroing in on the word "person" and using that term differently than how the law uses it in those circumstances.  A corporation is a legal entity with certain rights and obligations.  In some areas, those rights and obligations overlap those imposed on individual human persons.  In others, they do not and are quite different.

Okay. Well, isn't that a bit inconsistent? If a corporation isn't a person in one scenario, it shouldn't a person in any scenario (and vice versa).

It's not inconsistent, because a corporation is never simply defined as "a person". That's a pretty vast oversimplification of the American corporate system. As bosk said, corporations have the same rights and responsibilities as people in some select circumstances -- taxation, for example, or suing/being sued. The sentence "a corporation is a person" is a falsehood, and a pretty obvious one at that. It makes about as little sense as the sentence "Ms. Krueger then married the McDonald's Corporation".