Should same-sex marriage be legal?

[rubliw]

Evolution arbitrarily marginalizes, disenfranchises, discriminates and exterminates.

In fact, that is ALL evolution really is.

And there is zero morality behind it.

As I already explained, evolution is not mutually exclusive the existence of universal values and desires.  And those are the starting point for any moral system, whether evolution is true or whether Yahweh created the world in six days - you can't have morals without some sort of value to base it on.   And as it so happens, values exist - and I would even say values exist which are universal to all human beings.

So then we can say moral facts exist... facts which are not based on mere opinion, but are rooted in universal facts about human nature.  And evolution is true!  How bout that!

Yes, because every other liberal theory on sexual mores has proven such a success.

Remind us again why there are so many non-white children lingering for adoption you need fags to pick up the slack.

Oh, that's right. You made sex about personal fulfillment and freedom so now cities in liberal enclaves are destroyed leading to an epidemic of abortion, disease, divorce, single-parent households, absentee fathers, teen pregnancy etc etc etc.

That's quite a record you've got to run on.

Lol, um no.  The reasons behind the black community's present dilemmas are complex and varied, and it does them no justice to sit here and exclusively and simplistically blame them all on liberal policy.   I don't even think same-sex marriage is best characterized as a purely sexual issue.   Its civil rights - and no matter what their present troubles,  I'm sure we all agree, civil rights were a good thing for blacks.

As it is, I suspect that the anti-homosexual posture exhibited by many conservatives does exacerbate the woes of that particular community.

Now, somehow, you want us to believe that based on a worldview that espouses a moral vacuum and mass extinctions that propagandizing a behavior that does not reproduce will be "good" as if such things as "good" really exist and this somehow fills the bill even though that bill is nothing more than your subjective preference with no empirical evidence as a foundation.

I've tried to explain my view on morals briefly, and you've given no counterpoints to them.. I think all I can do at this point is recommend you actually read what some modern naturalists have to say on morality...  and suffice to say, that your continual assertions of "evolution, therefore no morals" are not impressive.

Maybe start with some Richard Carrier, whose views I borrow heavily from - here's a good, but long read:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/03/moral-ontology.html

Or here's a long video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dce8mE0q4zA

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

As I already explained, evolution is not mutually exclusive the existence of universal values and desires...

Subjective nonsense.

The entire waste of text is nothing but subjective relativism dressed up as absolutist certainty.

Homophobia is a value and a desire as well. So there.

And yes, liberals do own the blame for the decimation of the inner cities because minorities had intact families. Plenty of people, i.e. Thomas Sowell, note how welfare statism and loose sexual mores destroyed the black family.

Civil rights--in a consitutional sense--is not about sex or even families. It is about political participation. Gays are absolutely entitled to politically participate for those issues that weigh upon their conscience...including legally recognized marriage. In that respect they have every right heteros possess. And the homophobic, being born that way, have equal political rights to counter those efforts.

[rubliw]

Subjective nonsense.

The entire waste of text is nothing but subjective relativism dressed up as absolutist certainty.

Hardly.  Morals are simply facts about what one "ought to do", above all else.  And if there are universal facts about what humans value, then you've got your basis for objective human morality.   Even God-based morality relies on the existence of such a universal value, implicitly.

You seem to think God solves some problem of morality, based on comments you've made... but I'd argue its inconsistent for you to believe that God makes morality possible, and to reject my premise above about value.   One entails the other.   If you do accept that premise, then you have to necessarily accept my conclusion that moral facts can exist if there are universal values held by all minds - and that therefore, objective morals are possible on naturalism.... at least assuming there is something universally valued by all things with minds, above all else.

Homophobia is a value and a desire as well. So there.

Yes, but is it something universally desired above all else?   I don't think so.   If one desires well-being above all else - and I'd say this is universally true of all humans - then one not ought desire to be a homophobe.  

[DefiantSix]

Hardly.  Morals are simply facts about what one "ought to do", above all else.  And if there are universal facts about what humans value, then you've got your basis for objective human morality.   Even God-based morality relies on the existence of such a value, implicitly.   

Yes, but is it something universally desired above all else?   I don't think so.   If one desires well-being above all else - and I'd say this is universally true of all humans - then one not ought desire to be a homophobe. 

BS'ed because... well, because it feels good to BS you, Wilbur.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Hardly.  Morals are simply facts about what one "ought to do", above all else.  

Please empirically demonstrate what one "ought" to do.

Show me the microscope slide or express the mathematical formula for determining "ought."

Near as I can tell life was an accident. No one and nothing intended it to be here. It exists only by chemical determinance which itself is based on little more than the happenstance of the physical universe existing in the first place. Life as we see it is built on innumerable corpses killed off by shifting climate, disease, starvation, predators, stray rocks from space etc etc etc. Non-Life far outweighs Life as a force within the universe and Death wins all. One day all life will be extinguished with no one to mourn, judge or console. In a billion years--or one-billionth of that time--humanity will cease to exist. It will be consumed or displaced and nothing within the mindless universe will say "here lies a just/cruel race that did/not have gay marriage." Even the appeals to this society rely on the fact that this society itself stands upon a heap of other societies that have long since died out and it was like that ever since homonids started clubbing each to the tune of Thus Spake Zarathustra. If you want "human rights" go complain to those hairy bastards because they started it.

[rubliw]

Please empirically demonstrate what one "ought" to do.

Show me the microscope slide or express the mathematical formula for determining "ought."

Easy.

"Oughts" can be derived from "is"... in fact, that's the only way to get them.

If one *wants* to drive a nail (the is), then one *ought* to use a hammer.***
If one *wants* to drive a deck screw (the is), then one *ought* to use a drill.

And if you *really* want to accomplish those tasks, its an empirical fact, that you ought not try and use something like a chisel.  It won't work.  This is exactly how morality works.

If one *values* well-being (the is), then one ought to respect his neighbors property.
If one *values* well-being (the is), then one ought to do allow same-sex couples to marry.

Now, I'd agree.. in all the cases above, what one ought to do is dependent on a subjective desire.   But it is true, regardless of one's personal subjective belief, that if one *wants* to drive a nail, one ought to use a hammer***.  And its possibly true, that regardless of one's personal subjective belief, that if one values well-being, then one ought to respect his neighbor's property.  But what if there are things that *all* people universally desire - above all else?  This desire would no longer just be subjective, but a property of *all* human minds.  Well, then we can say something empirical about what these minds *ought* to do, given this universal desire, just like we can say something empirical about what one ought to do, if one wants to drive a nail.   We then have universal moral imperatives.

This is even how theist morality works.  Christianity, for example, has a lot to say about what I *ought* to do, but only if I actually value going to heaven.  But what if I value hell?  What if I would genuinely rather go there?  Then I *ought* to do things that will eventually put me in hell.   The only way Christian morality can work for me, is if I actually value going to heaven, period.

You might say that humans only care about well-being because evolution programmed them too... but similarly under theism, you could only say that humans desire heaven because God designed them too.   In both cases though, the moral system is rooted in something *real*  -  objective, universal desires - nothing else.  And that is sufficient.  It doesn't make sense to dig deeper than that.

And so finally, I do believe there are universal human desires - which all humans really want above all else - namely, well-being.   Some people might be mistaken about their own desires and wants, but ultimately I do believe that's what we all seek.   And so I believe there are universal moral imperatives.

Near as I can tell life was an accident. No one and nothing intended it to be here. It exists only by chemical determinance which itself is based on little more than the happenstance of the physical universe existing in the first place. Life as we see it is built on innumerable corpses killed off by shifting climate, disease, starvation, predators, stray rocks from space etc etc etc. Non-Life far outweighs Life as a force within the universe and Death wins all. One day all life will be extinguished with no one to mourn, judge or console. In a billion years--or one-billionth of that time--humanity will cease to exist. It will be consumed or displaced and nothing within the mindless universe will say "here lies a just/cruel race that did/not have gay marriage." Even the appeals to this society rely on the fact that this society itself stands upon a heap of other societies that have long since died out and it was like that ever since homonids started clubbing each to the tune of Thus Spake Zarathustra. If you want "human rights" go complain to those hairy bastards because they started it.

This is nice a poetic, but what's the actual argument?  Some clearly worded premises and conclusions would help me make sense of it. How does any of this negate the existence of values and desires, upon which morality is based?  

***Yes, sometimes nailguns are better, etc, but we don't need to get that nitpicky - there are situations where its empircally better to use a nailgun and where its empircally better to use a hammer.

[Eupher]

I'm awestruck at the level of insane wilbur goes to, just to state his "case". 

wilbur, are you ever going to actually spout facts instead of opinions?

 

[rubliw]

I'm awestruck at the level of insane wilbur goes to, just to state his "case".  

wilbur, are you ever going to actually spout facts instead of opinions?

 

I'm sorry, should I be saying stuff like "homophobia is an aberration, and unnatural, and abnormal!!"??  Would that do it better?  Are those the kinds of facts you are looking for?  

Cuz so far, that's all anybody seems to have.

[MP_Sarge]

Oh crap.  It's almost as bad as statistics.

LOGIC!!!!

*flees in terror*

[Eupher]

I'm sorry, should I be saying stuff like "homophobia is an aberration, and unnatural, and abnormal!!"??  Would that do it better?

First of all, you're NOT sorry. That makes you a liar.

Secondly, you've managed to rack up 267 posts that contain meaningless drivel.

Congratulations.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I swear my 10 year old has better wits than this.

If one *wants* to drive a nail (the is), then one *ought* to use a hammer.***
If one *wants* to drive a deck screw (the is), then one *ought* to use a drill

OK, so what do you want to use the hammer for? Building a house? OK, swell. If one man has a house and another doesn't is the man with a hammer obligated to build a house for the homeless or is a Buick good enough?

One could just as easily use a hammer to rid oneself of nettlesome in-laws if another, more useful, implement were not readily at hand.

That's not morality, you twit, that's utility.

I *want* your land.
I *ought* to use a gun to take it from you.

I prosper.
You're dead.

My values are fulfilled.
You're not around to complain about it.

BTW - I was making the utility argument AGAINST gay marriage at the beginning of th thread, even going to far as to note using a hammer to drive a screw was not useful. Congratulations--again--on proving my point for me.

This is nice a poetic, but what's the actual argument?

Can you point to a single aspect of it that is not true even if stated somewhat poetically?

The argument is: I'm not morally obligated to give you anything nor am I morally obligated to NOT take anything from you. My beneficence--or lack thereof--are strictly matters of personal utility.

[rubliw]

I swear my 10 year old has better wits than this.

OK, so what do you want to use the hammer for? Building a house? OK, swell. If one man has a house and another doesn't is the man with a hammer obligated to build a house for the homeless or is a Buick good enough?

One could just as easily use a hammer to rid oneself of nettlesome in-laws if another, more useful, implement were not readily at hand.

That's not morality, you twit, that's utility.

True, its not a moral impeditive to use the hammer to drive a nail.. just an imperative - but they work the same way.   Moral imperatives are imperatives that supersede *all* others.   A moral imperative is the imperative from which follows your want to drive the nail - perhaps you are building a home for your neighbor.   And I defined morality as "universal imperatives regarding what one *ought* to do, above all else".

I told you how I defined morality, and why and how I think it exists.   If you think that all I've done is just "utility"  - well, who cares?  I've provided universal imperatives, and that's what we're really after in this debate - imperatives which tell us how to act in regards to gay marriage, human rights, etc.  Imperatives that dictate how we ought to act.    

If you think morality is something else, its up to you to define it and argue for it.  If morality isn't a universal imperative which supersedes all else, then what else can it be, and why should I even care about it?

I *want* your land.
I *ought* to use a gun to take it from you.

I prosper.
You're dead.

My values are fulfilled.
You're not around to complain about it.

Presumably you have taken my land, and attacked me for your own well-being and prosperity.   Well, guess what?! The science of happiness is growing a large body of research which says stealing my land at gunpoint *won't be best* for your well-being, and that you'd actually be better off being altruistic work, and building facets of your own personal character if its your own personal happiness you are concerned about.   This is stuff we are beginning to study not only with psychology, but with neuroscience, and cognitive science - and we're getting real empirical data about what *really* makes us fulfilled.  And so far, it ain't a life of crime and untold riches that makes us happy - and this stuff is true for everybody.

So ultimately, I'd argue your assessment - that killing me at gunpoint - and taking my land - probably isnt what is actually best for your well-being.

BTW - I was making the utility argument AGAINST gay marriage at the beginning of th thread, even going to far as to note using a hammer to drive a screw was not useful. Congratulations--again--on proving my point for me.

Well, here's one point where I may depart from many gay people, though I'm not entirely sure.   If one day, we had the technology to switch someone's sexual orientation easily... it just might be best for everyone's well-being to be heterosexual.. maybe.   But of course, that's simply a pipe-dream at the moment.   So no, your "utility" argument does not work, not today.  

Can you point to a single aspect of it that is not true even if stated somewhat poetically?

I can't point to a single part of it that is relevant to my stated case for morality.... which has nothing to do with how temporary or eternal our minds are, or the universe is... but with what our minds objectively value.  

The argument is: I'm not morally obligated to give you anything nor am I morally obligated to NOT take anything from you. My beneficence--or lack thereof--are strictly matters of personal utility.

Well, then at this point, you need to tell me - specifically - what a "moral" actually is.   If its "what one ought to do, above all else", then I've met my burden, and given you that.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And I'm arguing that this "human right" you've invented exists no place except in the minds of the self-interested.

So ultimately, I'd argue your assessment - that killing me at gunpoint - and taking my land - is what is best for your well-being.

Thank Dog for the aptly omitted term.

I hear penance is good for happiness too. Maybe I should kill you first and feel sorry about it later.

Still, "cruelty" in this world seems more the rule than the exception. One would think that if altruism were a moral or pragmatic imperative, or even a superlative, more people would engage in it. You never have to argue a man into eating.

So no, your "utility" argument does not work, not today.

I was arguing the point that having a family requires a functioning penis and vagina working in tandem. No matter how many times you try, male-on-male penis-rectal mating will not produce a child.

But you probably already understood my original point, you just like to play obtuse.

Well, then at this point, you need to tell me - specifically - what a "moral" actually is.

Morality is a subjective fiction. It is only useful to the self-interested as a cooperative agreement. Yet as soon as one party ceases cooperation morality ceases. In one era commanders will ride to the middle of the battlefield to invite each other to take the first volley so as to mitigate the "barbarity" of war for acquiring wealth at another's mortal expense. Then in another era we cry about human rights and bemoan the injustice of Dachau but we'll firebomb hundreds of thousands of civilians into ash because they are inconvenient to that end.

Life always crawls to the lowest common denominator.

[rubliw]

And I'm arguing that this "human right" you've invented exists no place except in the minds of the self-interested.

And self-interest exists *in every single mind* - which is why its not merely a subjective thing, but an objective property of human brains.  Not only that, but barring the exception of diagnosed psychopaths, empathy and interest in the fate of others, exists in every single human mind.

Thank Dog for the aptly omitted term.

I hear penance is good for happiness too. Maybe I should kill you first and feel sorry about it later.

Still, "cruelty" in this world seems more the rule than the exception. One would think that if altruism were a moral or pragmatic imperative, or even a superlative, more people would engage in it. You never have to argue a man into eating.

I was arguing the point that having a family requires a functioning penis and vagina working in tandem. No matter how many times you try, male-on-male penis-rectal mating will not produce a child.

But you probably already understood my original point, you just like to play obtuse.

Morality is a subjective fiction. It is only useful to the self-interested as a cooperative agreement. Yet as soon as one party ceases cooperation morality ceases. In one era commanders will ride to the middle of the battlefield to invite each other to take the first volley so as to mitigate the "barbarity" of war for acquiring wealth at another's mortal expense. Then in another era we cry about human rights and bemoan the injustice of Dachau but we'll firebomb hundreds of thousands of civilians into ash because they are inconvenient to that end.

Life always crawls to the lowest common denominator.

Meh - so what?  People can break laws too, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  So people can always act contrary to universal moral imperatives...  that does not mean they do not exist.  And really, pertaining to *this* conversation, we can really put most of this philosophical crap aside... if we *both* share a value of human rights, we can have a conversation about whether same-sex marriage or whatever else, is consistent with that value.  Its that simple.

And you've made several comments to the effect of "Until God is revealed, I have no obligation to do X".... which suggests to me, anyways, that you've got a little more in mind as to what moral value is other than "subjective fiction".

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And self-interest exists *in every single mind* - which is why its not merely a subjective thing, but an objective property of human brains.  Not only that, but barring the exception of diagnosed psychopaths, empathy and interest in the fate of others, exists in every single human mind.

I think you mean sociopaths.

And history seems to be made up of sociopaths because humans have been slaughtering each other without compunction since before they could write it down as history.

Meh - so what?  People can break laws too, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  So people can always act contrary to universal moral imperatives...  that does not mean they do not exist...

And yet you seem wholly incapable of demonstrating this in objective terms.

Your mania for gay rights is no less subjective than homophobia. Yet, you're demanding people settle debate between chocolate and vanilla by demanding liver-spinach ripple be declared the national flavor.

[rubliw]

I think you mean sociopaths.

And history seems to be made up of sociopaths because humans have been slaughtering each other without compunction since before they could write it down as history.

In most cases, humans are slaughtering one another out of ignorance - just like you in your example (shooting me for land), most humans actually care about well-being, but are ignorant about how to go about it.   There are very few true psychopaths or sociopaths (both sort of the same thing).

And yet you seem wholly incapable of demonstrating this in objective terms.

I gave you an account of objective morality based wholly on naturalism and objective properties human minds - it may be refutable, but so far you have failed to refute it.   You have also failed to make a case that your nihilistic moral anti-realism the only logical conclusion from naturalism, and your best attempt so far is to say that we'll die and eventually the universe will end.   But you haven't explained why either of these facts entail the non-existence of universal moral imperatives, on naturalism.

My account of morality was not dependent upon the lifespan of human lives, nor on the lifespan of the universe, in any way shape or form.  In fact, even if I lived forever, I don't know how this changes the fact that people universally desire well-being.

Your mania for gay rights is no less subjective than homophobia. Yet, you're demanding people settle debate between chocolate and vanilla by demanding liver-spinach ripple be declared the national flavor.

Homophobia is not a universal to all human minds nor is it valued above all else.   The desire for fulfillment and satisfaction is.. and whether same-sex marriage (or even homophobia) is or is not good for that end, is an empirical question.

[MP_Sarge]

Meh, I have to quibble on one point-
The prevalence of personality disorders is steadily increasing.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I gave you an account of objective morality based wholly on naturalism and objective properties human minds - it may be refutable, but so far you have failed to refute it.

You've made untestable, unprovable assertions based solely on subjective ideas. There's a reason we aren't arguing over the value of pi...it's testable.

You make these insipid claims that people will be happier if only they think like you do.

You have also failed to make a case that your nihilistic moral anti-realism the only logical conclusion from naturalism, and your best attempt so far is to say that we'll die and eventually the universe will end.   But you haven't explained why either of these facts entail the non-existence of universal moral imperatives, on naturalism.

I claim there is nothing within the fabric or history of the universe that gives any hint of morality. I'm sitting here saying unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence of unicorns and you're crying I haven't proven they don't exist, ergo they must.

You aren't an advocate for morality. You're just a ***** who would be eaten by poodles if left to his own faculties so you try and con and badger people into tolerating your existence on your terms. You're a huckster. You're the liberal atheist version of Elmer Gantry.

My account of morality was not dependent upon the lifespan of human lives, nor on the lifespan of the universe, in any way shape or form.

You're right.

It's wholly dependent upon how far up your ass you have to reach for the next steamer.

Your subjective ideas are yours. They are not something I am obligated to heed.  If the matter is left to be decided by the government we have fabricated for ourselves I will toss my marker to the side of my preference but I get the feeling you don't like it when people do that because not enough markers end up in your basket. I seriously don't believe you have the means or the will to force them upon me by your own hand so you will instead point and cry while hiding behind the judge's robes.

If only the consent of the governed were a moral imperative.

[rubliw]

I'll keep this short SnuggleBunny, since this is getting pretty silly...

So far you have failed to even define what you believe morality to be - though you claim quite voraciously that it cannot exist.   You dodged the question, by suggesting it was "an absurd fiction", but so far failed to actually define what it is that you reject the existence of..

You claim there is nothing that exists which can have anything to say about how you ought to behave and  you scoff and sneer at the thought of any kind of morality actually existing...  yet you tell me with a straight face that "its absurd on its face" to suggest that biological imperatives do not exist (ie, you have a penis, therefore you should stick it in vaginas)... and even worse, you offer these "biological imperatives" as possible justifications as to why you shouldn't be expected to tolerate homosexuals.   I just can't keep up with all the contradictions..

And nobody is impressed by your internet tough-guy-ism, sorry.    It seems to come out in force when you get backed into an intellectual corner.  

And of course, you have thus far, also avoided expressing your opinion on human rights - do you value them, or no?  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You claim there is nothing that exists which can have anything to say about how you ought to behave and  you scoff and sneer at the thought of any kind of morality actually existing...  yet you tell me with a straight face that "its absurd on its face" to suggest that biological imperatives do not exist (ie, you have a penis, therefore you should stick it in vaginas)...

Go eat a pineapple by shoving it up your ass. We'll patiently wait here for the results but don't expect us to legislate in favor of the act.

and even worse, you offer these "biological imperatives" as possible justifications as to why you shouldn't be expected to tolerate homosexuals.   I just can't keep up with all the contradictions..

No one called it a biological imperative except you trying to hoist a strawman.

Life is NOT an imperative. Hetero sex is NOT an imperative.

They simply are.

That being said homosexuals are NOT a "sin"...whatever that might be but neither is accepting them an imperative.

It's only an argument between chocolate and vanilla.

It's subjective.

It is quite true you cannot produce children except by hetero sex. Any exception to this has supposedly only happened once.

All you have done is claim you prefer one flavor of "morality" over another and absent anything other than your subjective preferences you have demanded that I claim them as my own.

Well, I don't...and neither do a lot of other people.

You are free to appeal to the democracy of the ballot. We choose the ballot because it is less messier than the democracy of the bullet.

There are no unicorns and I am not obligated to place them on the Endangered Species List just because you're afraid my inaction will lead them to becoming extinct.

And of course, you have thus far, also avoided expressing your opinion on human rights - do you value them, or no?

I value them the way I value traffic lights and library numbering systems.

But this isn't so much my obligation to prove. You're the one making a positive claim.

[dandi]

You've made untestable, unprovable assertions based solely on subjective ideas. There's a reason we aren't arguing over the value of pi...it's testable.

You make these insipid claims that people will be happier if only they think like you do.
 

You aren't an advocate for morality. You're just a ***** who would be eaten by poodles if left to his own faculties so you try and con and badger people into tolerating your existence on your terms. You're a huckster. You're the liberal atheist version of Elmer Gantry.

Bravo, sir, a very accurate summation of our resident debate team reject.

[rubliw]

It's only an argument between chocolate and vanilla.

It's subjective.

No, it isnt.  If I say object X has property Y, then I'm making an empirical claim about the world - not a subjective one.   Even if I say, the poster named Wilbur has a favorite color, and that color is blue - I'm making an empirical claim, even though its a claim about a subjective belief.     If I say that all human beings have a favorite color, I am also making an empirical claim, but again about subjective beliefs.. But if true, it is universally, objectively true for all human minds that they contain subjective beliefs about favorite colors.  Independent of anyone's opinion, it would be true that everyone has a favorite color.

And in the case of the moral argument I presented, I am making such a claim about all minds - that there is a universal desire for well being, fulfillment, and satisfaction inherent in all minds... and this is universally true, independent of a personal opinion.  Maybe you think it false... but that's another matter... if true, the nature of the moral argument I provided, provides an account of universal moral imperatives, independent of anyone's subjective opinion.

Its not a matter of opinion whether minds value well-being... and its not a matter of opinion whether certain behaviors, more than others, will or won't lead to increased well-being for every mind who practices them. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Claims are not the same as facts.

That men eat is a fact. What men like to eat is a claim.

Saying that what men like to eat some how undergoes a metamorphosis into what they "ought" to eat and that what they like to eat "ought" to be provided to them or by virtue of their preference no other man "ought not" impede their preferred consumptions is where your pontificating falls flat.

OK, so people like to be fulfilled and satisfied. That is NOT the same as saying whatever makes a man feels fulfilled and satisfied is to be condoned and sanction by any other person who similarly likes to be fulfilled and satisfied. "He likes it, I must endorse it" is not a moral statement.

It's an idiotic statement.

If you are such an advocate for satisfaction and fulfillment then why do you argue in favor of imposing a policy preference on majority of the population that will do nothing to improve their lives, its absence is no detriment to them, would be passed against their consent and--if all other liberal theories on societal reconstruction are any indicator--will probably act to further decay their social fabric. Supposedly self-governance is satisfying and fulfilling as well but your advocacy on *that* principle only goes so far.

[TVDOC]

And in the case of the moral argument I presented, I am making such a claim about all minds - that there is a universal desire for well being, fulfillment, and satisfaction inherent in all minds... and this is universally true, independent of a personal opinion. Maybe you think it false... but that's another matter... if true, the nature of the moral argument I provided, provides an account of universal moral imperatives, independent of anyone's subjective opinion.

Its not a matter of opinion whether minds value well-being... and its not a matter of opinion whether certain behaviors, more than others, will or won't lead to increased well-being for every mind who practices them. 

Let's extrapolate your "theory" a little further.......

Serial killers derive a sense of well-being, fulfillment, and satisfaction from murdering other human beings without mercy, or consideration.  Therefore society should sanction serial murder in order to not interfere with another individuals "universal moral imperative".  Empirically, (a word you seem determined to misuse), serial killers are moral and psychological deviates.......(a fact not in question).

Reversing therefore your own "logic", homosexuals are also moral and psychological deviates.......why should society recognize and condone what is "satisfying and fulfillling" to one and not the other??

BTW.....I don't have a "favorite color"........

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Let's extrapolate your "theory" a little further.......

doc

wilbur will claim the caveat "unless it is harmful to someone else" so he can claim that the act of the serial killer are exempt from your proposition. So long as no conscious party is injured by the act it should be condoned.

Of course, this must mean necrophilia and bestiality are OK much to the relief of Twilight fans everywhere.