Droopy wrote:And where have the conservatives proven that "the best of traditional sexual norms" (whatever that means) is philosophically right or justifiable, or even logical, for that matter?
Proven? Its in the mountain of social science evidence that's been gathered since the eighties Scratch, the material you, as usual, haven't read.
What are you talking about? What "social science evidence" proves that "the best of traditional sexual norms" (and again, what are these? a precise definition would be nice) are right or justifiable as social practice/policy or [u]logical[/i]?
I once pointed out to Droopy that his argument is based on the logical fallacy known as the Naturalistic Fallacy---i.e., this is what "nature" intended vis-a-vis marriage and family, therefore it must be ethically correct! He fled the scene after this. Later, he came back and tried to maintain that, since the conservative position has its basis in Judeo-Christian beliefs, and since Judeo-Christian beliefs are "extra-logical," that his argument is somehow "immune" to a logic-based critique.
To be clear, I have never made the claim that the "traditional" family is what "nature intended". This is by the design and decree of God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ. It is part of the Gospel plan, and optimum for our progression and happiness, deviation from which brings negative consequences, and the farther the deviation, the greater the consequences involved.
In other words, my comments towards the beginning of this thread were correct: there is no "logical" reason to limit marriage to heterosexuals. It's because "Heavenly Father said so."
Quote:
The Left seeks a complete redefinition. Simply throwing up one's hands and deciding to prohibit or not prohibit, outside of the body of value judgments upon which such decisions could be made, is pointless, and purely utilitarian (while the issue is fundamentally moral and, ultimately, metaphysical, grounded in ultimate values).
Translation: "Because my position is metaphysical, you cannot critique it using logic."
You probably should have engaged my point above substantively, but instead, as usual, you threw a dirty snowball and ran away. Typical.
Feel free to explain how the above metaphysical argument can be discussed or debated on logical terms. I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.