@vivify saidSo you are not different than a Bible thumper. You know what defines morality and any other point of view is wrong.
If someone isn't harmed by an action, it's not wrong. Period. That goes for gay relationships.
No use discussing things with a true believer. Such people are closed minded and demand that others believe as they believe.
@eladar saidAre you cozy and comfortable inside your little bubble of fear?
So you are not different than a Bible thumper. You know what defines morality and any other point of view is wrong.
No use discussing things with a true believer. Such people are closed minded and demand that others believe as they believe.
Keep it to yourself, snowflake. Others don't need to be tainted by your irrational fears.
"Mother, did it need to be so high?"
@suzianne saidSo you have no problem with governments telling people what is moral and what is immoral, what a surprise.
Are you cozy and comfortable inside your little bubble of fear?
Keep it to yourself, snowflake. Others don't need to be tainted by your irrational fears.
"Mother, did it need to be so high?"
Yes, that was sarcasm. See my original post regarding liberals.
@eladar saidGovernments don't tell people what is moral. This is why we have a First Amendment. This is why we have a Bill of Rights. LGBTQ+ are people too. You treating them as "less than" is what is immoral.
So you have no problem with governments telling people what is moral and what is immoral, what a surprise.
Yes, that was sarcasm. See my original post regarding liberals.
1 edit
@eladar saidBy your logic, anyone gets to decide what's a moral issue or not. How about we decide if eating cows is moral because they're sacred to Hindus? **Why do politicians take a moral stand when they eat burgers?**
So you are not different than a Bible thumper. You know what defines morality and any other point of view is wrong.
See how stupid that is? Just because your religion claims something like homosexuality is a moral issue, that doesn't mean it is.
Whether or not someone gets harmed is the only objective criteria for what constitutes a moral discussion.
2 edits
@vivify saidThere is legal and moral.
By your logic, anyone gets to decide what's a moral issue or not. How about we decide if eating cows is moral because they're sacred to Hindus? **Why do politicians take a moral stand when they eat burgers?**
See how stupid that is? Just because your religion claims something like homosexuality is a moral issue, that doesn't mean it is.
Whether or not someone gets harmed is the only objective criteria for what constitutes a moral discussion.
You do not seem to know the difference.
Am I saying that a politician cannot be a homosexual? That would be the same as eating a burger in your example.
No need in repeating what you believe makes something moral or immoral. I understand your position. The problem comes when you try to force others to agree with you.
@eladar saidSo a municipality allowing a rainbow flag is unacceptable because it is making a "moral" stance but a country passing a law with penal sanctions for "promoting homosexuality to minors" isn't?
The story that inspired me to start the thread
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen slammed as a disgrace the law passed by Viktor Orban's government banning the "promotion" of homosexuality to minors, while Germany's foreign minister said UEFA's decision sent the "wrong signal".
https://sports.yahoo.com/germany-turns-rainbow-coloured-protest-095711805.html
Refusing to use the government to display a pro-homosexuality symbol is anti-homosexuality? Homey don't think so.
@no1marauder saidPromoting is the problem. The government should not be promoting one person's morality over the other, just deciding if something is legal.
So a municipality allowing a rainbow flag is unacceptable because it is making a "moral" stance but a country passing a law with penal sanctions for "promoting homosexuality to minors" isn't?
Promoting homosexuality is no different than promoting religion.
@eladar saidSo if's it is "no different" a country should be able to pass a law with penal sanctions banning the "promotion of religion" to minors?
Promoting is the problem. The government should not be promoting one person's morality over the other, just deciding if something is legal.
Promoting homosexuality is no different than promoting religion.
@no1marauder saidIt is the exact same idea, that is all I am saying. In other words, a soccer event should not be used to try to convert people to a religion.
So if's it is "no different" a country should be able to pass a law with penal sanctions banning the "promotion of religion" to minors?
@eladar saidI think the moral vs illegal is an interesting topic.
The story that inspired me to start the thread
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen slammed as a disgrace the law passed by Viktor Orban's government banning the "promotion" of homosexuality to minors, while Germany's foreign minister said UEFA's decision sent the "wrong signal".
https://sports.yahoo.com/germany-turns-rainbow-coloured-protest-095711805.html
Refusing to use the government to display a pro-homosexuality symbol is anti-homosexuality? Homey don't think so.
However, this example has nothing to do with actual morality, but to do with human rights and EU law.
Hungary’s new law contradicts EU law on equal rights, etc.
Hence the uproar about it.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidHuman rights? How is that?
I think the moral vs illegal is an interesting topic.
However, this example has nothing to do with actual morality, but to do with human rights and EU law.
Hungary’s new law contradicts EU law on equal rights, etc.
Hence the uproar about it.
Is anyone saying it is illegal to be gay? If they are gay, do they need to be recruited through advertisement? Not sure where rights are being taken away from anyone.
Or do you mean the right to advertise? Not sure if the right to advertise is a human right.
@eladar saidDoes legality stem from morality?
Should governments try to claim that something is moral? Or should governments simply claim it is legal?
Case in point, sexual relationships
Should a government actively claim that one kind of sexual relationship is moral, make claims that there is nothing wrong with it?
For instance, two people living together without getting married. Should governments take steps ...[text shortened]... ertain worldview, aka religious view.
Not that the liberals around here will agree with that lol.
Take murdering children.
Most countries have made it illegal.
Is there not a moral basis to the choice of making it illegal?
Or theft? Isn’t that a moral choice? And does someone who steals a loaf of bread deserve the death penalty? And if it’s stolen to feed starving children? The death penalty?
So, some crimes are deemed worse than others and this is reflected in law.
Economics influence laws as well. Power influences law making. Etc.
So, legailty is influenced by various themes. See these themes as lobbies or strings being pulled.
The more totalitarian the State, the more power will be the dominant string shaping legality. The more democratic, the more morality will be the dominant string.
And the more capitalist, presumably, economics will be more dominant.
So, the illegality, of say drugs: is that due to morality? Or is it alcohol companies wanting to corner a market? Maybe it’s a power position for certain individuals?
Presumably, this one is down to economics.
Homosexuality. In some places it’s illegal. In some places it is not.
Historically speaking, it’s always been a thing.
This looks to me to be a case of morality influencing law.
The base morality being: sexual relationships between consenting adults is morally okay. So, homosexuality is too.
This has become EU law. And Hungary is an EU country.
Should a government claim or promote morality?
I think if morality is the basis for the law, then it’s perfectly okay.
If the law is based on something else, like power or economics, then it’s not okay.
And when a government does claim morality when the legality it’s persuing is based on something else, you even feel there’s something wrong in the message.
@eladar saidIt’s illegal to discriminate against any form of consenual adult sexual relationship.
Human rights? How is that?
Is anyone saying it is illegal to be gay? If they are gay, do they need to be recruited through advertisement? Not sure where rights are being taken away from anyone.
Or do you mean the right to advertise? Not sure if the right to advertise is a human right.
So if you’re educating on relationships, then you educate on the full spectrum of it.
The new law bans films with homosexual content. That is discrimination.
@shavixmir
When it comes to homosexuality, the morality basis is that the government has no right being in bedrooms.
No amount of argument on your part can make homosexuality moral, all you can do is explain why you believe it is moral. Having said that, nobody can claim absolute morality on this issue, at least which everyone will agree. All we can do is give our own opinion.