Irish Voters Do the Right Thing….

Posted on by

…Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual

http://www.theguardian.com/global/live/2015/may/23/counting-underway-for-irelands-referendum-on-marriage-equality

Ireland becomes first country to legalise same-sex marriage by popular vote

Irish voters have decisively voted in favour of marriage equality, making Ireland the first country to do so through the ballot box. Only one of the 43 constituencies voted against the proposal – Roscommon-South Leitrim – while the yes vote exceeded 70% in many parts of Dublin. The no campaigners have paid tribute to their opponents, and the archbishop of Dublin has said the result should be a wake-up call for the Catholic church in Ireland.

[title shortened by Lizzie]

274 thoughts on “Irish Voters Do the Right Thing….”

  1. William J. Murray: You have absolutely no idea what my argument is even about, or else you’d realize the absurdity of this question.

    So how do you answer it?

  2. William, why don’t you answer my questions? You’ve yet to derive any moral oughts.

  3. Alan Fox said:

    This claim is a mere assertion. There is no difference between “having existence or being factual or true outside of any individual person’s mind/opinion/view” and “William Murray makes stuff up”.

    Do you really not understand the difference between assuming something objectively exists to examine the logical consequences and entailments, and asserting that something objectively exists? I have never asserted that these things objectively exist; I have assumed it to follow the logical consequences thereof, just as I have assumed materialism and subjective morality from several different points of view to logically follow where those assumptions lead and what those assumptions entail.

  4. Richardthughes:

    Precious! Morality fairy, Justice unicorn and Feelings weasel could also be assumptions, WJM. Making things up is FUN!

    Yes, one can assume anything they wish and follow the logical consequences and entailments thereof to see if they provide a sound basis for our views and are rationally consistent with actual behavior and expectations.

  6. William J. Murray: Do you really not understand the difference between assuming something objectively exists to examine the logical consequences and entailments, and asserting that something objectively exists? I have never asserted that these things objectively exist; I have assumed it to follow the logical consequences thereof, just as I have assumed materialism and subjective morality from several different points of view to logically follow where those assumptions lead and what those assumptions entail.

    As I said, you make stuff up. If that satisfies you, fine.

  7. William J. Murray: I have assumed it to follow the logical consequences thereof, just as I have assumed materialism and subjective morality from several different points of view to logically follow where those assumptions lead and what those assumptions entail.

    And I find the opposite assumption, and find that morality is no more subjective then it was when it followed from theism. Less subjective, actually, because based on actual experience, not on a subjective choice of god-model.

  8. RandomnessdoesntExist:

    Diseases which were created and trasmited due to anal sex (some of them out of the millions) [bolding mine]

    syphilis
    Neisseria gonorrhoeae
    Klebsiella granulomatis
    Chlamydia trachomatis
    Haemophilus ducreyi

    Anal sex is like a lottery machine with bacteria, the lucky one will became a disease!

    I would be interested to see the references that these were all created by anal sex.

    Would you like to know some other activities that spread disease? Teacher, day care worker, medical treatment, movie theatres, sporting events…. By your argument, all of these are evil and should be made illegal.

    I know that you seriously and honestly believe what you are saying. But do you not see that your beliefs are the genesis of hatred and bigotry?

  9. One must remember that Noah’s small family carried all these diseases. A remarkable feat. Of course, most scholars think that Ham and Noah got it on, so that might explain things.

    And Noah was the closest thing to a sin-free person available at the time.

  10. WJM: As has been pointed out above, your claim that we use our conscience and reasoning to figure out moral questions suggests that we are relying on our own resources to do this, so what is the purpose of objective morality ? Does it sort of hang around and watch ?

  13. Uncommondescent may host some weird content, but their web design has a really nifty feature: the posts are numbered. So simple. So useful.

  14. graham2: WJM: As has been pointed out above, your claim that we use our conscience and reasoning to figure out moral questions suggests that we are relying on our own resources to do this, so what is the purpose of objective morality ? Does it sort of hang around and watch ?

    Objective Morality is, objectively speaking, a kinky pervert. 🙂

  15. William J. Murray,

    I said it can only be subjective or objective in nature. Which is a valid dichotomy.

    That is not what you said, as anyone with a scroll wheel can verify. Here is what you said: “So we see, “moral norms” is just a comforting lie materialists tell themselves so they don’t have to choose between the brutal anarchy of “because I feel like it, because I can”, which they know is wrong, and god, which they cannot tolerate.”. If we have a shared genetic predisposition towards kindness, this is not a mere “because I feel like it” preference (in the ‘ice cream’ sense), nor is it God.

    If your “objective source” of “conscience” is “genetic predisposition”, then all genetic “conscience” predispositions are by definition valid as moral guides

    To repeat yet again, the genetic argument refers to the basis of our sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, not as moral guidance. For that, you need to consult a book. Preferably a big, old one, believed by lots of people.

    – which means that if my “conscience” finds rape acceptable, then rape is morally good by definition for that person or group.

    If your conscience finds rape acceptable, there is sod all anyone can actually do about that, whatever metaphysical position you decided to espouse. As an aside though, your thinking is stubbornly dichotomous. If someone finds rape acceptable, this does not mean that they find it morally good. It simply means they don’t find it morally bad. But anyway – do I find it morally bad? Yes. Do you? Yes. Do they? Possibly not. Does God? God? Hello, God … Are you there?

    I agree that if one accepts whatever anyone’s conscience says as what is moral for that person, you have described a form of objective morality.

    Unfortunately, no sane person actually lives as if that form of “objective morality” is true, and this is the point my argument addresses.

    I live precisely as if that is the case, as I have told you repeatedly. You calling me a liar? 😀 There are not as many moral positions as there are people. We are all the same species, and share broadly the same predilections. I live as if that were the case. It certainly fits the observed facts.

    Also, your argument equivocates the meaning of “objective”.Objective means having existence or being factual or true outside of any individual person’s mind/opinion/view.

    Just a small point – I DID NOT USE THE WORD “OBJECTIVE”. There. I feel better now.

    Thus, a genetically predisposed conscience would still render a subjective morality, even if it was shared by a large group. Just because a large group is predisposed to prefer the taste of vanilla over chocolate doesn’t mean vanilla is objectively better tasting than chocolate

    Phew. Another point I never attempted to make, soundly refuted!

  16. William J. Murray,

    Do you really not understand the difference between assuming something objectively exists to examine the logical consequences and entailments, and asserting that something objectively exists?

    Hah! When I do that, I’m sneered at for a ‘just-so story’, in which even my caution (“there may be”) becomes part of the mockery. ‘S OK, I’m a big lad, I can take it (sniff!).

  18. Acartia, Do you believe that diseases came out of nothingness, uncaused? Where do you support that?
    I already said how a disease is created with anal sex due to bacteria.

  20. Rumraket

    Prove that there is even such a thing as sodomy.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

    Bad in what way? It isn’t “objectively wrong” just because it might carry with it a higher chance of transmitting STD’s.

    Anal sex is the ultimate cause of sexual diseases, the diseases that are transmitted today with normal sex are the diseases that were created with anal sex.

    You don’t know what “objectively wrong” means.

    You are the one that lacks the definition of the word objective.

    Motorcycling carries with it an objectively higher chance of death due to traffic accident, does that mean motorcycling is objectively wrong? Obviously not.

    Motorcycling isn’t the same with anal sex, anal sex can’t change and become safer, you must have penetration for anal sex and penetration means danger. motorcycling can be safer.

    We’ve all met them, the prudes who are jealoux of people they secretly want to be like. Instead of coming out and being who they are, they are scared of it, and so instead out of frustration they try to fight it because their thoughts are filled with it all the time. It’s a kind of self-loathing. They hate what they are because what they are makes them feel bad about themselves because the surrounding culture they grew up in has brainwashed them to think their nature is a bad thing.

    Exactly, the feel bad about themselves because homosexuality is objectively bad, what is better proof than someone who is a secretly a homosexual and protests against homosexuality? Even Dawkins admitted that humans tend to feel
    awful when they see 2 homosexuals because it goes against their survival.

  21. RandomnessdoesntExist: Even Dawkins admitted that humans tend to feel
    awful when they see 2 homosexuals because it goes against their survival.

    Oh, bless your lil heart, darlin’.

  22. RandomnessdoesntExist,

    Even Dawkins admitted that humans tend to feel awful when they see 2 homosexuals because it goes against their survival.

    You have a citation for that little nugget?

  23. While we’re on the subject of Dawkins:

    He had a video made of himself titled Love Letters to Richard Dawkins. He calmly sits and reads some of the emails people have sent to him:

    Have you ever tried to make love to a monkey?” I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised if you had since sodomites are now running all of our universities. But either way i hope you do get sodomized by satanic monkeys in hell. Sincerely, a created daughter of our Lord.”

    Ooh, such a sweet, loving, christian thing to say. And christians wonder why I’m afraid of them and their mad fantasies.

    Here’s another, but not on the subject of buttsecks. (Sorry, they can’t ALL be on the subject of buttsecks!)

    Fuck you, you fuckety-fucker. What will you think when your are being basted in the broth of god’s righteous indignation? I look forward to observing from my post in heaven the exquisite tortures you will suffer at the hands of the just and loving god whom you have rejected, you fuckety-fucker. God bless!

    Ya know, I hate Ken Ham and Eric Hovind and Pope Frankie and all their lot — and I’m mean and rude and I’m an “evil atheist” — but even I would never sink so low as to say “I look forward to the tortures [they] will suffer.”

    Dear Lord God, how can your christians be such dreadful, fearful, paranoid, stupid, vengeful people?

    Well, to be honest, not ALL christians are dreadful people. The Irish majority just proved that!

Leave a Reply