Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is unless there is a God in the equation. If not morality is tethered to nothing and is capable of being bent to any preference which is what is going on here. Even without God people generally have agreed that massive increases in suffering without any justifying gain in return is the basis for something that is morally wrong. Homosexuality is one of the worst in that regard. You have three choices.
My arguments have had nothing to do with my faith. They are secular arguments.
If you allow that anything at all is wrong then increasing suffering for no reason would be (not Buddhism). If you do not grant that minimal moral truth then no conversation is possible.
I care nothing for what a man says. I care what is rationally defendable. My claims are. This one is not.
Good Lord man. I have no inclinations whatever about gay behavior and I do spend time around them, and even like them. I am not judging a person. I am judging a behavior.
I am not and that is one silly statement to make. Do you have an argument or just commentary?
I think so. When in the military and in terrible situation a long way from home I grew very close to people of both sexes without any sexual involvement. What does that have to do with homosexual behavior causing massive increases in human suffering without a justification for doing so? We love children probably more than anyone else. Is that some bizarre justification for sex with them?
I have no idea what claim you made you think accomplished this impossible feat. Since you will not join me in reality let me fantasize along with you for a moment. It is not the truth but let's pretend that monogamous homosexual relationships were 100% free of disease. How does that do anything to help with non disease related problems? I have posted a list of them twice in this thread but they are so disgusting I will not do so again. You must prove several things before monogamy is even a relevant issue.
I see, so in the wide world of actual homosexual reality you can't find a single example of anything that would over turn my claims. You must appeal to fantasy even if it concerns things tat are impossible to mount even an attempt at a defense. I rest my case.
I never assumed that, never thought that, and never hinted at that in any post. Do you have anything to offer that is not a product or desperate fantasy?
So if you find anything that does increase suffering of any kind that is not considered immoral then any other act of any kind that produces suffering can't be called immoral either. Is that the best you got? Is that how any system of law and morality in human history has ever worked? What asylum was this logic produced by? When you can explain why the logic in your comparison is rational then I will deal with it.
My claims are towering over your responses just as tall as they originally were. You have not even dented one. Better luck next time.
Apparently you are not going to accept the rational response to whatever trap you are trying so hard to set up so before I get mired in a swamp of denial let me ask you what you are trying to prove. Is the capacity to do something justification for doing it. I can love a woman who is not the person I am married to (at times even more). So is that a reason for doing so? I can hate as well. Is that justified?
All I'm trying to do is see whether or not you actually understand that being homosexual is about a lot more than just sex. The fact that you seem to be so unable to think of homosexuality outside of the physical act of sex, rather than actual, meaningful relationships, somewhat disturbs me and calls your morality and perception of reality into serious question.
Ask you whether you think any of your arguments justify devaluing the feelings of people just because they love people who happen to be the same gender.
Then don't call it that - call it "homosexual sex" or "gay sex". Again, the use of your generalized language is intended to paint homosexuality as nothing but a physical, sexual act.
I haven't said anything about justification. I'm just trying to get to the heart of your mentality.
I have a feeling I am being set up. However you will probably make a much better argument than anyone else has in a while here so I will play along. I am speaking primarily about homosexual sex. I have objections to marriage and the military but I want to keep things simple and so my two main contentions are both sexually related. I see nothing you said that calls my morality into question. I have no idea why you said that. Can you explain?
What level of feelings are worth the devastation, cost, and death the behavior causes? Exactly how many good feelings is a man's life worth? So what if Chad or the Congo has so many aids deaths they can't even bury them, if 10% of the population feels better. I do not understand your claim.
I have no use what so ever for whatever term is in vogue at the moment. I hate PC crap and will mostly do the exact opposite. You know what I mean by the term because I explained what I meant so at least between us there is no need for misunderstanding what I mean from this point on.
This is my position in summary.
If you cannot differentiate homosexuality as a sexual preference from the actual act of homosexual sex (and therefore only think of homosexuality in terms of sex), I think you are as morally bankrupt as someone who thinks about heterosexual relationships only in terms of sex. It shows an unhealthy fixation on the subject and an inability to understand or empathize with a group of people rather than simply being repelled by an act they may or may not partake in.
I know dozens of gay couples. I can safely, and happily, tell you that they have caused absolutely no devastation, cost or death than I am aware of. Should I tell them to stop, just in case?
So, because there may be negative consequences of a given lifestyle or preference in a minority of cases, that makes that lifestyle or preference immoral or unjustified?
This isn't political correctness (although I have no problem with making language more inclusive, and find those who are repelled by the idea to be largely lacking in understanding as to what political correctness actually is and what it amounts to - but that's an entirely different debate). It's basic decency. What if I used the term "heterosexual behavior" to refer only to heterosexual sex rather than the loving, consenting, emotional aspects of heterosexual relationships?
There was no misunderstanding, just pointing out that your use of language suggests a lack of human empathy and understanding that homosexuality is about more than just sex.
A very good start.
This is all very subjective. What you think may be considered a "justifiable gain" of something may not be universal, and the simple fact that a given act may come with a higher risk than another does not equal "this act increases suffering". Again, none of the gay couples I know personally have "increased" anybody's "suffering", so where is the problem? Perhaps you know a lot more gay couples than I do?
Again, using ambiguous and subjective language. What you consider to be a "legitimate function" of something is entirely your own opinion, and not a matter of fact. As far as I am concerned, the human body is "built" just as well for the act of homosexual sex as it is for heterosexual sex or (indeed) the act of childbirth.
That's called prevalence, not causation. If a given disease is more prevalent in a particular population, does that mean that particular population is responsible for "increasing suffering"? Does this mentality of yours take into account the simple fact that there are millions of practicing, consenting homosexuals who do no "increase" any "suffering" simply by showing some responsibility. This is not an argument against homosexuality - it's an argument against irresponsible sex and lack of proper sexual hygiene. The fact that homosexuality carries a higher risk is no more relevant to whether it is moral than the fact that full fat mayonnaise carries a higher risk than light mayonnaise. Is full fat mayonnaise increasing suffering, or rather than condemn the act of purchasing mayonnaise, does it not make a lot more sense to simply support responsible and hygienic practices with condiments?
Yes it does. Loving, consenting, meaningful relationships, parenthood, cohesive family units and partnership. The exact same benefits to heterosexual partnerships and sex in a childless relationship.
Again, I disagree with this for reasons specified previously.
They're not facts, nor do they have any bearing on the defense of the practice. They're based entirely on hyperbole, manipulation and denial of any emotional benefits to human relationships.
Done and done.
I never said that, never hinted that, never thought that but even if true it has nothing to do with my moral system which you have no access nor knowledge of as a whole. I even stated several more aspect to homosexuality specifically. Why did you ignore that and claim this anyway? I actually have a much larger view of homosexuality that it is even possible for you to have. Mine embraces all of reality including the supernatural realm which you simply deny. If I was to write on the basis, nature, and impact of homosexuality in totality it would be a book, which is impractical for a debate. I selected one aspect of homosexuality among several I mentioned this is perfectly valid to consider in isolation in this context. If the slightest flaw in my argument exists you have not even began to point it out.
Most babies who find guns do not kill anyone. Should we allow babies to play with guns. Should we tell them to stop jus in case? Most drunk drivers get home without incident. Lets have parades where we demand the rights to drive drunk. Lets call risking the death and misery of people we do not know because we get pleasure from the misuse of something is moral high ground and accuse anyone who wishes to limit the diseases and misery as being bigots. You know, I have many faults and screw up many things. That is understandable. What is not understandable is calling those mistakes good or right without a single reason for claiming it. What is worse is calling anyone who honestly says bad things are bad as wrong. This kind of moral insanity is at the root of more evil than anything I can think of and seems to be increasing in our modern secular times.
What is excusable about a distortion of nature when the 4% that do it cause 60% of the aids even if that was the only problem (when it is actually a hundred fold more than that). It might be excusable if it produced a good thing that compensated for the cost (as heterosexuality does). However since it has nothing in it's favor other than it feels good and you like it, no justification is possible.
I am loyal to truth as best as I can determine it. I would never been intentionally offensive but I will not compromise truth for the sake of this moments favorite words. Political correctness is a subordination of fact for inclusion. It is a lie. What the heck is offensive or even contrived to be in any term use I have made?
I do not see anything offensive about anything I have said. Words and things are amoral and do not have intention. To claim a word is offensive is ridiculous. The intention behind the word is what can be called offensive. You have no access to that and even the word I used has no offensive capacity even if I did. This is a distraction. I said I was not accusing you specifically of using these false moral high ground tactics above. Then less than ten sentences later that is all that your are doing. It is amazing how consistent (and wrong) liberal claims are. You do not have the slightest fraction of what you need to start suggesting I lack empathy. I have many problems but empathy is not one of them. It would be comical if it was not so sad when the person who defends death and misery for the sake of lust says the one who is arguing for life, is lacking empathy. You literally can't make this stuff up. Do you know what empathy means?
No it is a lie or to be generous the arbitrary exclusion of truth. However I must adopt this false dichotomy to debate with those who only acknowledge a section of reality. If I am right this is a great evil. However I can't prove I am (but I can get close) so I pretend this is reasonable for the time being.
Of course things are not universal without God. They aren't justifiable, they are no longer morally true, and they can't possibly go beyond preference and convenience. I am stuck in your ambiguous system not mine. I have foundations in my views but I must use your lack of foundations and truth if I meet you own your own ground. However even if it can't be shown to be true almost everyone would say physical pleasure is no justification for death and misery (especially when it is caused to others who do not do the behavior). If you think liking something justifies killing someone else then just say so and I can stop this futile discussion at this point. Without God morality is an illusion. I adopted the most widely believed form of that illusion.
No it is not. A tree is not designed to do what rocks do. A rock is not designed to function as a bird. A bird is not designed to do what viruses do. Even without God things in nature a built for a purpose and function. What homosexuals do defies them all. It causes anal cancer and many other disgusting things that I have posted many times. Nature abhors the practice and seems to be punishing it quite harshly. There is not natural justification for the behavior. It is also quite bizarre that you say I have no natural justification for denying the behavior yet you insist you have natural justification for allowing it. Double standards and false moral high grounds in the defense of death are the hallmarks of a failed argument.
I did not say causes tough it would have been perfectly true if I had. It most certainly does mean some aspect of that population is causing the result. I expected better from you. Claiming 4% of the population causing 60% of just one disease when the criteria for the group labels and statistics was homosexual sexual behavior is incidental is about the worst argument possible. Is murder incidental to killers? Is overdosing incidental to drug addicts. Is alcohol induced liver failure incidental to drunks?
That is not the benefit that heterosexuality has that justifies it's practice. It is the fact that it is necessary for the human race to even exist. That does not exist in homosexuality and is also why not a single animal among the very few who act in homosexual ways are strictly homosexual.
There were no valid reasons specified previously.
They are the exact same reasoning even the ungodly use for morality and law. Gain versus cost is a perfectly valid standard and the only rational way for those who have no actual moral foundation for any actual moral truth to justify anything to be called moral or immoral.
You done all right. Hope you actually start first next time. You have not given a single reason that any rational person should justify homosexual sexual acts. I expected much more from you. I guess this subject has no justification possible and it is just the nature of immorality in general to be un-defendable. I recommend you review Agnostic's posts in defense of homosexuality. It has no defense possible but they got as close as possible in a few claims.
Er.. your arguments have been challenged, refuted and refutations ignored. I didn't do as good a job as I should have in explaining just why your nasty little arguments are flawed, I let myself get too distracted by irrelevances.
I never said you did. This was the whole reason I started the line of reasoning in the first place.
I very much doubt that.
That's irrelevant. What beliefs you have with regards to God, spirits, magic or aliens doesn't mean you have a broader view, just a view informed by different criteria. And the supernatural is not a part of reality until you can clearly demonstrate it to be so - but that's a very separate subject.
Because you haven't read the rest of my post, apparently. All I did was tell you that I think your attitude, your language and your general mentality with regards to homosexuality seems to imply that you think of it entirely in terms of the physical, sexual act, and that I think this implies a lack of perception and morality on your part. There is no need for this hyperbolic, knee-jerk reaction.
Are you seriously comparing being gay to babies handling guns?
See above. You're equating homosexuality with irresponsibility. Do you not conceive the possibility that there is such a thing as responsible gay people?
This is exactly the kind of ridiculous, childish hyperbole I was talking about. My friends (some of whom I have known for years) have never "risked the death and misery of people they do not know" and it is absolutely ridiculous for you to say they do. You might as well argue that, just because some car owners have endangered lives, it means that we shouldn't have the right to own cars. You need to get a grip on reality.
Yet, it is not understandable that a minority of homosexuals (just like a minority of heterosexuals) do not practice sex responsibly rather than blaming the entirety of homosexuality for their actions?
I still have yet to see a cogent, rational response to my arguments. Just emotional appeals, rhetoric and personal opinion.
No, what kids do is deny reality and repeat their arguments when they have just been refuted.
Again, I see no response to my refutation of this blinkered, nonsensical argument of yours.
I already listed the benefits. You need to read my posts.
Or, as your pastor/Bible tells you, then to finding as much information as you can that confirms your belief through confirmation bias and twisting figures to fit your agenda.
What are you even talking about? I never accused you of making offense, just using language that indicated your inability to see the wider picture of homosexuality. Political correctness has nothing to do with it, and - again - I don't even think you understand what political correctness is if you think it is "a subordination of fact for inclusion".
Good thing I didn't, then.
Again, I didn't accuse anything of being "offensive", but calling into question the intention behind your words is exactly what I did and was the point of my argument in the first place.
You seem to have gotten seriously upset over me simply trying to discern the meaning and implications behind your use of specific terminology. You wouldn't take kindly to a therapist, I think.
