It is nothing like an algebra problem. At all. It is a philosophical question.
It's like an algebra problem in that it has a correct and incorrect answer.
I do not share the assumptions that you base your morality upon.
OK, how does that respond to the quote it was under?
Except that is a subjective statement.
No, it's not. It's objective. No harm comes from homosexual acts, therefore there's nothing wrong with it.
Well, it's very simple. Blue is a horrendous colour.
Yes, that's subjective. That's why you're welcome to dislike homosexuality and even be disgusted by it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
It need not be thoughtless to accept another's words.
It is if you're doing it simply because they're in a position of authority, and you're just accepting what they say.
OK, then prove it.
You might be right, it could just be an ignorant theory.
It could be, but it's not. It's a very aware theory, actually.
Based on the non-comprehension of the subjective nature of individual morality.
No, I understand that. However, we've lost sight of the fact that there's a difference between "I don't like it" and "It's wrong".
My base of morality is different than yours, thus when I use logic I come to a different conclusion.
Yes, your base of morality is a book and what you've been told. Mine is logic and reason. So, if you use logic after starting from faulty premises, you will come to the wrong conclusion. However, if you use logic and reason, meaning you use correct premises and logic, you'll come to the correct conclusion.
And that's not what you were saying. You were saying it was OK to just accept that tutelage and go with the authorityon the subject. What you're supposed to do is have that teacher explain why and how it works, not just that it's true.
And that's not what's happening when taking someone else's authority on homosexuality. That consists of "Homosexuality is wrong. Why? Because this book says so. How do we know that book is correct? Because a bunch of people said so.".
Going back to the analogy. Two people, whose highest mathemetics has been long division are given a calculus problem on a test. There is a Math PhD in the room who says the answer is X. One person is ready to write that down, but the other starts saying, no, the answer is Y, if you thought for yourself you'd come up with Y too.
Which answer would a logical person put on the test? X or Y?
Well, that's not quite an accurate depiction of what's going on here. In that case it would be more like: The math PHD says the answer is this. Person A goes to write down the answer. Person B says "Why is that the answer?". The math PHD explains why and how it works in all situations, and person B sees how it works, so he uses the answer.
It does not in any case. The conclusion never reflects on the amount of thought put into the answer.
Yes, it does. If an intelligent person spend enough time using logic and reason on a problem of this nature, they will come to one particular answer. If they don't come to that answer, they haven't thought about it enough.
To use an analogy like yours: It's like being in algebra class and working on an example in class. You go through it quickly and think you've gotten the right answer. You call the teacher over and show it to her. She says "No, that's not quite right. Just work with it a little more, and you'll get it". You work on it for another 5 minutes and realize what your mistake was, and correct it and get the right answer.
