Are there Reasonable Moral Grounds to Oppose Open Relationships and Marriages?

[painted wolf]

You mean like the above statement?

No. But nice try.

IMHO the person who uses "unnatural sex" as a descriptor doesn't really care about what is or isn't "natural". If presented with evidence that homosexuality is common in nature then they will simply change tactics and use the "humans are beyond nature" or some variation there of.

It's a piece of rhetoric to try to sway opinion, not an argument itself. It's only use is to try to depict the behavior in question as something horrible and against nature. An appeal to emotion nothing more.

Unless, your point really is that if something is "natural" it is intrinsically valid, while something "unnatural" is intrinsically invalid?

wa:do

 

[Walkntune]

No. But nice try.

IMHO the person who uses "unnatural sex" as a descriptor doesn't really care about what is or isn't "natural". If presented with evidence that homosexuality is common in nature then they will simply change tactics and use the "humans are beyond nature" or some variation there of.

It's a piece of rhetoric to try to sway opinion, not an argument itself. It's only use is to try to depict the behavior in question as something horrible and against nature. An appeal to emotion nothing more.

Unless, your point really is that if something is "natural" it is intrinsically valid, while something "unnatural" is intrinsically invalid?

wa:do

So on what moral grounds can you give a reason that humans should not eat their young?

 

[painted wolf]

So on what moral grounds can you give a reason that humans should not eat their young?

Other than causing duress to the parents? Which causes social disharmony, reprisals and so on ?

Of course if your from a culture where eating the dead is a traditional sign of respect for the passed then nothing really. So long as you aren't hunting them.

Besides, how is this equivalent to a couple who loves each other?

wa:do

 

[waitasec]

So on what moral grounds can you give a reason that humans should not eat their young?

are you grasping at straws?
seems so.

 

[Songbird]

So on what moral grounds can you give a reason that humans should not eat their young?

Hello, left field.

 

[Walkntune]

Other than causing duress to the parents? Which causes social disharmony, reprisals and so on ?

Of course if your from a culture where eating the dead is a traditional sign of respect for the passed then nothing really. So long as you aren't hunting them.

Besides, how is this equivalent to a couple who loves each other?

wa:do

It has to do with basing morality off of what we observe in nature.
Why do you say as long as we aren't hunting them? Do animals not eat the young from others? How can you justify a behavior by what is seen in nature? If we base morality off of that which we observe in nature then why pick and choose?
Is stealing morally wrong? Do animals steal from each other in nature?
Why make a distinction of the actions not being equivalent after all aren't they both justified by being observed in nature?
From where does the distinction come from to what is moral and not moral in nature? Is it nothing but an emotional appeal?

 

[Songbird]

It has to do with basing morality off of what we observe in nature.
Why do you say as long as we aren't hunting them? Do animals not eat the young from others? How can you justify a behavior by what is seen in nature? If we base morality off of that which we observe in nature then why pick and choose?
Is stealing morally wrong? Do animals steal from each other in nature?
Why make a distinction of the actions not being equivalent after all aren't they both justified by being observed in nature?
From where does the distinction come from to what is moral and not moral in nature? Is it nothing but an emotional appeal?

I think I missed the part where we were talking about basing morality on nature. Seems we were discussing homosexuality described as being unnatural.

What does homosexuality have to do with morality, anyway?

 

[Walkntune]

I think I missed the part where we were talking about basing morality on nature. Seems we were discussing homosexuality described as being unnatural.

What does homosexuality have to do with morality, anyway?

Why were you discussing whether homosexuality is natural or not?

 

[waitasec]

So on what moral grounds can you give a reason that humans should not eat their young?

why would say eating the young is based on moral grounds?

 

[McBell]

It has to do with basing morality off of what we observe in nature.

What does that have to do with something being 'natural' or 'unnatural'?

Why do you say as long as we aren't hunting them? Do animals not eat the young from others?

Wow.
Did not take you long to move those goalposts...

How can you justify a behavior by what is seen in nature?

The exact same way you can justify condemning a behavior based on nature.

If we base morality off of that which we observe in nature then why pick and choose?

The same reasons theists pick and choose from their god breathed holy texts.

Is stealing morally wrong?

Yes and no.

Do animals steal from each other in nature?

Yes.

Why make a distinction of the actions not being equivalent after all aren't they both justified by being observed in nature?

Got me.
Why not ask all those people who make the claim that homosexuality is unnatural?

From where does the distinction come from to what is moral and not moral in nature?

From the observer.

Is it nothing but an emotional appeal?

Yes.

It is ALSO an appeal to emotion fallacy.

 

[Walkntune]

why would say eating the young is based on moral grounds?

I don't but I don't base morality off of nature.As far as my convictions are concerned we live in a fallen world.That includes man and nature itself.

 

[painted wolf]

It has to do with basing morality off of what we observe in nature.

And who said we should base our morality on what we find in nature?
And why are you arguing about it at me?

Why do you say as long as we aren't hunting them?

Because that would be cruel and inhumane. :sarcastic

Do animals not eat the young from others? How can you justify a behavior by what is seen in nature? If we base morality off of that which we observe in nature then why pick and choose?
Is stealing morally wrong? Do animals steal from each other in nature?
Why make a distinction of the actions not being equivalent after all aren't they both justified by being observed in nature?
From where does the distinction come from to what is moral and not moral in nature? Is it nothing but an emotional appeal?

Perhaps you should start from the beginning of the discussion (post # 266)... you seem to be arguing with a strawman rather than anything I've actually said. Frankly this turn of the discussion is getting a little strange IMHO.

wa:do

 

[waitasec]

I don't but I don't base morality off of nature.As far as my convictions are concerned we live in a fallen world.That includes man and nature itself.

good because nature doesn't hold morals... nature is indifferent.
and morality is relative.


would you circumcise your daughter?
why or why not? and why would other consider it perfectly acceptable?

 

[Walkntune]

=Mestemia;2663578]What does that have to do with something being 'natural' or 'unnatural'?

Whats the point of discussion whether something is natural or not ?My point is that behaviors can't be jusified by what we observe in nature unless all behaviors we observe are justified.

Wow.
Did not take you long to move those goalposts...

Whether a behavior is natural or not is irrelevant? Never moved the goal post.

The exact same way you can justify condemning a behavior based on nature.

Form my convictions natural man and nature are in a fallen state and therefore has no justification.

The same reasons theists pick and choose from their god breathed holy texts.

Natural man is in a fallen state.

Yes and no.

Where is the distinction?

Yes.

Yes.

It is ALSO an appeal to emotion fallacy

Do you find Hitler to have more or less moral charactor than Mother Teresa and from where do you make this distinction?

 

[McBell]

Whats the point of discussion whether something is natural or not ?My point is that behaviors can't be jusified by what we observe in nature unless all behaviors we observe are justified.

And yet it is those against same sex marriage who try to play the "it is unnatural" card...

Whether a behavior is natural or not is irrelevant? Never moved the goal post.

Yes you did.
You started with: "So on what moral grounds can you give a reason that humans should not eat their young? "

Ten changed it to: "Do animals not eat the young from others?"

Form my convictions natural man and nature are in a fallen state and therefore has no justification.

Yet there are lots of people who try to justify their gods bigotry by saying homosexuality is unnatural.

I cannot help but wonder how many of them you discussed their unjustified argument with.
You missed it in this thread.....

Natural man is in a fallen state.

Sorry.
That reply does not answer anything nor does it help clarify anything discussed thus far.

Where is the distinction?

In the observer.

Do you find Hitler to have more or less moral charactor than Mother Teresa and from where do you make this distinction?

I find them to be pretty much equal.

 

[waitasec]

Do you find Hitler to have more or less moral charactor than Mother Teresa and from where do you make this distinction?

as far as i'm concerned the same...
equating birth control to murder pretty much set up the stage for needless suffering for millions of impoverished people

 

[McBell]

as far as i'm concerned the same...
equating birth control to murder pretty much set up the stage for needless suffering for millions of impoverished people

Then perhaps Mother Teresa was in fact less moral than Hitler.
Mother Teresa claimed to know better....

Just saying.

 

[Walkntune]

=painted wolf;2663593]And who said we should base our morality on what we find in nature?
And why are you arguing about it at me?

Sorry not arguing. I ask more sincerely then I am challenging.When I put what I say out there I usually say my convictions as someone can take it or leave it.

Because that would be cruel and inhumane. :sarcastic

Is this an emotional appeal?

Perhaps you should start from the beginning of the discussion (post # 266)... you seem to be arguing with a strawman rather than anything I've actually said. Frankly this turn of the discussion is getting a little strange IMHO.

wa:do

Sorry I did jump in on your post #281.The discussion went into whether the behavior was natural or unnatural and I think that it's irrelevent.On what grounds do you base what you consider humane and moral and that which is just natural.

 

[Walkntune]

as far as i'm concerned the same...
equating birth control to murder pretty much set up the stage for needless suffering for millions of impoverished people

Then perhaps Mother Teresa was in fact less moral than Hitler.
Mother Teresa claimed to know better....

Just saying.

Money,power, and control is the reason we have impoverished people.
Doing away with that which is effected in no way will do away with the cause.

 

[McBell]

Money,power, and control is the reason we have impoverished people.
Doing away with that which is effected in no way will do away with the cause.

Wow, then it is definitely the church that is the more immoral, eh?