Conservatives and Liberals always have had opposing viewpoints,
but one thing they agreed on is that most things that they see immoral there is a most always a victim. For
example murder (murderer and murdered) abuse (abuser and abused). New York Times
said, “The absence of victims occurs only in the absence of immorality.” Which means if there is no victim them there is no immorality. One of
the big topics brought up while talking about this is the conflicting act of
homosexuality. Who is directly affected by homosexuality? From a Christian view
point we know that it’s immoral and causes people to stumble and it’s a sin,
but not everyone is a Christian. So how can we tell non-Christians who the
victims are in homosexuality? People see things as harmful not to antagonize
the opposing view point but because they think it is immoral. Conservatives may
think homosexuality and gun control are wrong but liberals may think that
religion in school is harmful to society. Besides having a religious bias how
can we say that one or the other is right. You need prove to persuade peoples mind.
No one will agree with you when you say it’s wrong because God says and I believe
in God. Some say that the outbreak of homosexuality is equivalent to a nuclear holocast, but why? Who are actually effected by homosexuality besides the ones struggling with it thenselves. When you grow up with morals and beliefs and then something like this comes along making you question wether or not it's right, it makes you question whether or not you're whole belief system is right. Homosexuality distorts the sacred act of marriage. Marriage has always been between a women and man why should someone who agrees with that be forced to entertain the immorality of others. Conservatives and liberals like I said both believe that for something to be immoral there has to be a victim why then are they having conflicting views on topics? Shouldn't they have the same views if they both believe this? In conclusion there has to be harm for something to be immoral and wrong so to prove something is immoral you need to find what the harm and/or victim is.
Taylor, this is a good boiling down of a very complicated argument in the article, way to simplify and make sense of a challenging idea. I like the examples and the explanations, your summaries are accurate and understandable. Good job.
ReplyDelete