True morality should work to the benefit of all. If something doesn't feel right, don't do it.
So if not killing someone doesnt feel right, dont do it? This philosophy is absurd. True morality works by telling us what we ought to do regardless of whether or not we are benefited.
Because any other basis is arbitrary or can be changed at will (i.e. a persons feelings). To get into depth on the nature of morality would require we separate ourselves from the current homosexuality train of thought and derail onto a whole new different line of debate, though.
But a theif[sic] or murderer harms people (yes, there's the bloody harm thing again. I know it doesn't matter to you...but hurting people, erm...hurts. XP)
Irrelevant.
I'm saying society has no reason to have this disdain. It's irrational. I can understand someone being disgusted towards two people of the same sex having sex, but there's no reason for the treatment gays get.
There may be no reason to treat them as outcasts because theyre sinners, but there
is reason to have a disdain toward their homosexual actions; just as much reason as there is to have disdain toward the act of lying.
I think spiders are disgusting and freaky. Does that give me a right to hate them? No. I mean, they aren't trying to frighten me on purpose or anyting[sic], for one thing XP
Do you like them? Considering you think theyre disgusting and freaky, Id think not. Id imagine you have a sort of anti-like toward them, in other words, a sort of hatred. This is not a parallel analogy anyway, though. You dont like the spider for what it is regardless of morality. Homosexual actions are condemned in direct proportion to morality, not because these homosexuals had no choice in the matter. If people have no choice but to do evil, then it makes no sense to blame them they had no choice. This is
not the case for the homosexual, though. These people choose of their own accord how to act, or to even act at all. Simply because they have a particular desire to do something does not compel them beyond control to do it.
As for the site...I haven't done any background checking, but it seems awful biased to me.
Oh, here we go with the ad hominem fallacy again. Look at the sources, bub. Theres Newsweek, Science Magazine, the United States Census Bureau, etc. Id hardly think of these big names as ignorantly bias sources.
Just because there are homosexuals who live bad lifes doesn't mean homosexuality=bad lifestyle.
If the average homosexual lifestyle is like that, it would be utter folly to ignore the connection. Average heterosexual, not like this. Average homosexual, like this. Coincidence? Hmmm.
But homosexuality isn't a 'wrong track'.
It looks like you and God disagree on this, then. Personally, Ill stick with the ultimate authority of morality rather than a creation under its rule.
A person cannot choose their sexuality. It's not fully understand (by me, at least), but we do no control the way our body reacts to sexual stimuli.
Now thats not entirely true. The crux of the issue lies with psychology.
No matter how it comes about, we don't control it. Telling a homosexual who doesn't want to change that they must be heterosexual and have romantic/sexual interest towards the opposite sex is like telling someone they have to have romantic/sexual interest towards a paper clip.
It seems there are ex-homosexuals who would disagree with you.
You misread what I wrote. I said pointless to some homosexuals.
No, I didnt. You didnt type what you meant, it seems. You left the comment as generally pointless.
There are those of us who live good lives, are in monogamous relationships, and are generally happy.
According to statistics, the majority of homosexuals cant say that.
We see no reason to change. People try to convince us we are wrong, foul creatures. I don't see why. We live normal lifes[sic] (though the definition of normal is questionable at times), save for having romantic/sexual interest/relationships in the same sex.
If youre doing something that is against morality, Id see that as reason enough to change. The problem seems to be your philosophy on morality: If it doesnt hurt anyone, its okay. Ive already demonstrated that this falls short, and gives no reason to see patience, humility, courage, etc as morally good attributes (as most presume they are).
Here's the 'track' bit again. Are you one of those people who thinks everyone is born heterosexual?
I believe in that possibility, but Im not saying its a certainty either. Either way, the conclusion is irrelevant to the morality of homosexual action.
Or just that everyone should be heterosexual (I think those people like the 'people were born homosexual after the fall of man. We must change them.' bit)
Everyone should be heterosexual just as much as everyone should be self-controlled and moral. Homosexuality is
not the way God intended human sexuality to be.
Uh, which god? Even if you narrow it down to the Christian god, there are thousands of Christian denominations, and several times more independent Christian churches and movements, all with their own take on what is immoral according to god.
Peoples understanding of morality does not alter morality itself any more than a persons limited understanding of math affects the laws of mathematics. There is an objective standard of good & evil, and God has spelled it out in scripture. In all honesty, I have yet to run into any well-read Christian who just isnt sure what is moral and what is not, or who disagrees with another well-read Christian on some sort of major moral issue. I think there are bound to be gray areas where the Bible isnt crystal clear, but homosexuality is not one of them, and of those, essentially all such gray areas are minuscule.
This ranges from not ingesting alcohol to being ok to sleep with multiple partners - all consider themselves Christian.
Youd be surprised at the stupid tactics people will resort to in order to justify their sinful desires.
Sorry, but there is no evidence of an objective morality according to god.
Haha, what a joke. I propose you do a study on this then. Perhaps you should start by reading The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. He surveys all sorts of cultures throughout various time periods in demonstrating the existence of an objective moral code. Like I said, we could get into this line of debate, but it would require we change topics from the nature of homosexuality to the nature of morality.
It seems like we'd all do well to treat each other with dignity and respect, and go from there.
What a nice atheistic answer. The problem then is this: Why? You cant answer that outside of your own personal fancy. If anyone were to disagree with you, you couldnt say they were any more wrong than if the two of you had a dispute about which type of ice cream was the best.
(I revisited the site, and it's propaganda is transparent. Such a diatribe on AIDS alone is telling. I could go on and on about it, but that may give the site more exposure than it really deserves.)
Can we say ad hominem once again? Look at the sources, pal. Some of those bigger names I think you should recognize.
"I think the point is, it isn't always that kind of choice.[/quote]
Having homosexual urges? Of course not. Like I said before, it could also be due to trauma or psychological errors.
Making this type of comparison is unfair. Keep in mind that 40 years ago, if a black man were walking down the street holding hands with a white woman in the deep south of the USA, that man could very well find himself dead in the morning. And the arguments for opposing such interracial relationships were invariably based on what was "unnatural" and a sin against god.
And I would have debated against them too. Past follies of a people concerning a different topic are no excuse to swing the pendulum all the way to the other side whenever a similar situation arises.
Jedi, I don't know what your experience is with gay and lesbian individuals, but I can't help but to wonder if you'd had the same experience that I've had with happy, healthy, productive, committed citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian, then you'd have a different opinion.
I dont let my emotions get in the way. Lets just look at the facts and go from there.
No one advocates the spread of diseases, public displays of sexuality, or people hurting one another. But to link homosexuality with necessarily, or even usually, including these traits is patently false. That is the straw man argument.
Hardly. It is drawing a parallel line with the same line of reasoning to show that it is utter folly. Theres a fine difference. Havent you taken a philosophy course or two in college?
Even if claiming god determined homosexual acts to be immoral, we must ask why? God's morality still needs to make sense on some rational level. To accept something as immoral according to god without some independent, rational basis for it being so leaves the conscience open to accepting anything as immoral, no matter how absurd. So the questions is this, "God thinks homosexual acts are immoral, because ___________________." If one could give a reasonable answer to this question, then maybe we'd get somewhere.
This is where we get into the nature of morality, a discussion Ive participated in here numerous times before; however, it is an entirely different line of debate all in itself. For the sake of staying on track, I think it should suffice, at least for the moment, to leave it at this: God, the creator of all there is, as the ultimate authority concerning morality.
(And let's stay away from lazy arguments like trying to use the spread of AIDS - especially considering the vast majority of AIDS cases are spread thru heterosexual contact.)
Untrue. Homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% (or perhaps even 5%) of the population. Didn't you read through that website?