Based on what objective criteria. Not that I even said what you rejected.
This is the same twisted logic that led to the Volstead act. It eliminated legal alcohol, only to produce moonshine, and crime gangs. That's because the problem wasn't the substance but the human heart.
1. Alcohol is amoral, the alcoholic is immoral.
2. Drugs are amoral, the drug addict is immoral.
Even with a war on drugs, drug addicts have only increased.
Generally, I think of *acts* as being moral or immoral. Alternatively, I can see *rules* as being moral or immoral.
I see alcoholics and drug addicts as having an *illness*. It is their disregard of other people that are involved that is immoral.
3. Bullets are amoral, murderers are immoral.
Yes, murder hurts another person.
4. A fetus isn't immoral, it's promiscuity that is immoral.
I don't see promiscuity as immoral, in general. Disregard of others is the immoral aspect. But if all people involved are in agreement and have full understanding of the situation, I have no issue with people having sex.
5. Money is amoral, the love of money is immoral.
Again, I don't see the love of money as being the issue as much as the disregard of people. When *anything* becomes more important than the lives of other people, there is at least a potential moral issue. That is true whether it is money or a religious viewpoint. Very occasionally (such as a defensive war), this bias towards human life can be outweighed, but there is *always* a moral issue to be resolved.
6. Sex as God intended is moral, sex as our lust intends is immoral and usually has much higher risks.
And I disagree. The immorality, such as it exists, is in the disregard of other people.
You leftists get everything backwards.
Funny, I'd say the religious folks get it exactly backwards.
I already gave you plenty of reasons which you apparently ignored, why supply more?
Lesbians are far *less* likely to spread AIDS than even straights. They do not harm lives of others. Your claims are simply not applicable to lesbians at all (they are weak when dealing with male homosexuals, also).
What the? This is another leftist tactic called virtue signaling. You describe something that leads to more damages and costs than just about anything I can think of, as if it is not merely a virtue but a necessity.
What are the damages?? Responsible sex prior to marriage is useful as a way to guarantee sexual compatibility in the married couple. That is a HUGE benefit. As long as birth control and protection from diseases is maintained, what are the damages?
Allowing gay marriage does little to prevent the promiscuity, and it seems that not many gays ever actually wanted to get married anyway. Where it was made legal the demand was a trickle instead of a flood.
Funny, I know of several married gay couples. Maybe it doesn't make headlines after the first in an area, but yes, gays want to be married also.
Their general happiness was not the point. Your too smart to be misunderstanding my emphatic statements this often. I said that Gays are highly disposed to not be satisfied with simply being with one sexuality. Homosexuals seem to be on average bisexual with only the number of times they switch differing between each other.
Given the fact that straights are also generally unwilling to be with one sexually, what is the distinction you want to make? Those who want to get married generally want monogamy (although not all do).
So far I brought up 2 and you brought up 1 behavior that violate your standard of human well being to an extent as large as any 3 concepts that I could imagine. You did not stick by your own standard, you attempted to rationalize two of them and ignored the third all together. If your not going to take your paper tiger seriously why should I?
No, the problem is that we disagree about whether human well-being is being accomplished in various situations.
What? Since you don't seem to track what I say let's see what the CDC has to say:
Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
Gay and Bisexual Men | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC
They certainly seemed to link a specific sexual behavior that results in aids data worse than even what I originally stated.
Yes, an unwillingness to use appropriate protection *is* a huge problem. Can we agree that we should encourage the use of condoms for those having sex?
What other communicable disease do you discriminate against those likely to get it? Would you be willing to say someone with shingles (which is highly contagious) should not be allowed to go out in public? Would you consider it to be immoral for them to do so?
At this point I can't take your moral arguments seriously anymore. Do you want to switch gears to a historical argument instead?
Well, you have been repetitive and ignore my points repeatedly. You have stated your basis for objective morality several times, but haven't shown where my standards violate that.
