The people against gay marriage are idiots, bigots, and quite possibly one of the worst kinds of human beings.
So because I believe in God and verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9, you equate me (and other Christians) with the likes of Hitler and this guy??
BTW, what are your thoughts about "triangular triads"? Anything goes, right?
Unless we all get on the same page and look at humanity for what it really is (evolved apes), we aren't going anywhere.
From where did morals originate? Marc Hauser of Harvard has been leading the research on the origins of morals… well, that is until he was fired for eight counts of academic misconduct. How ironic.
Bottom line, there is absolutely zero basis for morals or ethics in nature. And as Professor William Provine famously stated: “modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear… There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death… There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”
Now if we are all just evolved animals, and there is no free will (according to Provine), then I obviously can't help the views that I hold, right?
I implore you to open your mind to common sense and the truth, and to stop clinging desperately to your current conception of morals.
Firstly, there is basis for morality in evolution. Secondly, we fight Darwinian impulses all the time. To speciously use the phrase "just evolved animals" does not change the fact that we are highly evolved animals capable of making any choices we want. Contraception is an example of us resisting a Darwinian impulse. And there are many other examples.
Secondly, even if there was no basis for good and evil, moral or immoral in the natural world, why on earth does that matter?
. There still CAN be a basis for morality in human society. We can create a right or wrong. In fact, we already have. We did when we rejected old religious teachings in favour of modern, secular morality, such as the abolition of slavery (among many others). We base these moral decisions on a criteria of fairness and the well being of sentient beings. This has been the direction of positive morality for the past 2000 years. When Ryanm speaks of a "conscience" as a filter for biblical teachings and "divine" mandate, this is what he's talking about: empathy and understanding teaches us what is right or wrong, and it is ultimately through these two avenues that we make our moral decisions. I hear all the time that without God there is no "objective morality", or to quote your reference "no purposes". Can we please grow up to be a society that isn't paralysed and stupefied by the truth? Even if there are no "purposes", it does not mean that there isn't earthly purpose in our daily lives. It does not mean we can't construct morality, whether that involves repudiating our Darwinian impulses or not. Perhaps we should imbibe the Hindu moral teaching of good for the sake of good, independent of reward. It's the most practical, selfless, earthly path for human prosperity. So objective purpose or not, divine mandate or not, supernatural supervision or not, and having impunity or not, we can still be moral beings. Because luckily, we have two innate agents of morality, namely empathy and understanding. We are more or less agreed on what is right as a species. I hate to offer you a cliche example, but yes, look at the "golden rule", present in teachings of Confucius and other pre-biblical sources, as well in areas of the world then-untouched by Judeo-Christian moral philosophy.
Furthermore, though, this is how our morality should be sorted out! By rational discussion and analysis of implications. This is the method we trust to Law and Medicine. I'd like to think that we've lived long enough as a self aware species to know that sometimes answers aren't black and white, and absolutism, most of the time, has crippling deficiencies when it comes to addressing real world problems and actually achieving just outcomes. Once again... I direct you to the legal system.
I also want to point out one more thing. If the Christian God was somehow disproven tomorrow, the world would be as is. My neighbours would not go out raping and pillaging. Nor would they come over to my house and steal my U2 DVDs.
We'd have to form a morality based on the criteria I mentioned above. Fairness and the well being of sentient creatures.
Your conception of morality as being arbitered necessarily and solely by the divine is affecting the way you view gay marriage.
The thing is, thanks to pluralism and multiculturalism, trying to incorporate the idea that your God is this moral arbiter, and that the bible is the documentation of his will into legislation
, is not acceptable and it could be well argued is bigoted. Your religious beliefs can't be given any greater importance than those of other religions and those of the non religious. (God Bless America).
Edit: I don't think it is yet proven, by the way, that we have no free will without the existence of a God. I am aware some eminent scientists hold the view, but to lump in evolution with the absence of free will is misleading.
And to address your point about triangular triads, homosexuality "is a form of love as well as sex", and therefore demands our respect as such. (There's quite a stirring bible passage on love actually). That is the difference.