Why we'll never bake your fake wedding cake PT. II

Of course it's subjective. I've already shown you that.

Lol, then what does this mean.......

Great, then you agree nothing is forced on you.

what pro same sex marriage advocates said this?

 

I never said it was, I said the NAZIs thought it was. There were defeated by people who had different morals. Thus morals are subjective.

The Nazis thought differently. My point was that THEIR morals and OUR morals differed. However, it proves morality is subjective.

Says the person who posts idiotic slippery slopes that have nothing to do with SSM being legalized. I accept your concession that SSM has nothing to do with the other idiotic slippery slopes you listed.

 

Isn't this conversation a bit redundant? I would explain it to you for the umpteenth time but it never seems to sink in.

 

You could stumble through fallacy and nonsense, but truth be told it isn't immoral. If certain religious people believe it is they need to make a logical case for it. Simply saying it's against your religion begs the question.

So let me rephrase my question, give a logical explanation why it it's immoral.

 

Then killing Jews is moral using that reasoning.

It means what it says. "Forcing immoral behavior on people who have religious and moral objections to it," is wrong.

I agree that you presented a strawman argument.

All of them.

 

By accepting the notion that morality is subjective then you must accept that the Nazi were morally right. But they weren't by your own admission.

Their actions cannot be morally justified by changing the definition of what is moral. Therefore, morality cannot be changed, redefined, or subject to popular opinion.

Do not presume to accept concessions I have not offered.

 

Already dealt with this.

If you're not forced to marry a same sex partner nothing is forced on you. You aren't affected in any way.

I see you still don't know what this means.

I've never said it, so did you mispeak or did you lie?

 

Simply saying that it is against their religion is all that is needed because we have freedom of religion in this country.

 

Yes, by accepting the premise that the Nazi's were morally justified killing Jews because morality is subjective.

I never said that I was forced to marry a same sex partner. Strawman.

I see that you don't know what that means because you just make another strawman argument.

I never said that you represent pro-abortion advocacy groups.

 

being against their religion doesn't make it immoral. Morality isn't subjective but religion is, so that begs the question.

 

Morality isn't subjective, I agree. Homosexuality is a sin, it is immoral and against their religion.

 

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. No, you do not have to accept the Nazi's were morally right to realize their morals were different. I love how you use a fallacy of "If you don't think this, then you think that". Fallacies, lies, and ignorance are all your comments have demonstrated here.

People have different morals. Your morals are no more right than mine. You may think they are, but it isn't fact.

Given your comments, yes, I do accept your concession because your comments don't even have the basic grasp of English.

 

Nope. Already dealt with this.

Great. Then you agree nothing is forced on you.

Another shining example.

I can't tell if you are a POE or bipolar..........

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) did abortion make its way into this nonsense?

 

And your only right based on your beliefs is to NOT marry someone of the same sex or have sexual relations with one. You don't get to tell someone else they can't.

 

You are only proving my point when you say, "Your morals are no more right than mine." Such an admission means acceptance of Nazi's moral authority.

When I say that morality is not subjective I mean that morality is inexorable. Something is either moral all the time, or immoral all the time. It is either right, or wrong. There is no grey area when it comes to morality.

Your morals and mine are always superior to the morality of the Nazi's because killing Jews is ALWAYS wrong.

You know something else that is immoral? Stooping to name-calling because you have lost the argument. That is the only concession I see here. When you have to stoop to that, you have conceded the argument.

 

Really, so can I say it is against my religion to serve a black person and then not be fined for it? I use this example not as an equivocation of race versus homosexuality, but because you have made an ABSOLUTE statement that all they have to say is it is against their religion.

Your statement is false.

 

When your argument contains nothing of merit - go for the Nazi thing. Pathetic.

 

No, you are back to playing the race card in spite of you denial. Thank you for playing.

 

There's nothing more pathetic than interjecting into the middle of a discussion without understanding the conversation contextually.

 

It only is accepting THEY thought it was moral. Not that I agree with them that it was moral. However, their morals and mine are obviously different. Therefore it is subjective.

Not true, to some it is moral to have sex for fun as long as it is with the woman you love, but to others procreation is the only reason for sex and thus the original action would be immoral to them. That is subjective.

Never said the Nazis morals were superior, I only stated THEY thought they were.

I have attacked your comments, so if you don't like that don't post here. Your comments are not free from criticism. So nice try there.

- - - Updated - - -

Answer the question is freedom of religion absolute or not? YOU claim it is. I have shown it isn't. You have been proven wrong, thank you for playing.

 

If morality is not subjective and religion is, your post begs the question.

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it was moral to them, but immoral to you. One of you has to be right, one of you has to be wrong.

An excellent example if you wish to prove morality is virtually meaningless and superfluous when it is subjective.

No, you said they are morally inferior because what they did was immoral to you.

I was referring to the personal attack on me.

My claim is that morality is absolute. Freedom of religion is a Constitutional right.

 

This is the best explanation of an objective morality that I could find. It explains it from a secular position but explaining it from a religious position would begs the question. Since religion is subjective It cannot be the source of objective morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

 

Of course I can. Their perspective is different than mine. That doesn't mean I agree with them or think it is moral. As for one side being right and wrong, that is of course if you subscribe to the theory there is only one God and only one way. I don't, I am agnostic and I am of the thought there could be the possibility of multiple Gods with multiple agendas.

In a sense it is meaningless and superfluous because society is what has determined what is ultimately moral or not. There was a time slavery was moral. There was a time women not having the right to vote was moral in regards to what society though.

Again, what I think is irrelevant to what they think. Their morals were different than mine.

So far I've attacked your comments and the idea that your religion is the true religion. That is not against forum rules.

As pointed out it isn't. Your morals are not factually the truth or correct. You have FAITH they are.

As for freedom of religion, I already pointed out that is not absolute either. If I say that it is against my religion to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, I am still going to be fined. So freedom of religion is NOT absolute.

 

You don't understand that you are endorsing all of those things by endorsing the concept that morality is subjective. You are endorsing slavery and women not having the vote and the Holocaust.