upset by comments

[morningstar2651]

Asserting that something is unnatural is equivalent to asserting that it is "supernatural".

You could win the Million Dollar Challenge if you could prove homosexuality to be unnatural (supernatural).

 

[PookySmiley]

I understand that the attraction thing may be somewhat uncontrolable...but living that lifestyle is indeed a choice.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[PookySmiley]

Translation: Spend the rest of your life alone with no one to love.

Not at all. All love doesn't include sex.

 

[PookySmiley]

On pretty much any topic related to sex, children get dragged into it.

For instance, any discussion of porn is immediately shifted to kiddy porn, even though virtually no one even knows how to find kiddy porn, much less watch it. There is absolutely no relationship between kiddy porn and regular porn. Yet the former is far worse, so by associating the two you make the latter sound worse. It's just a case of pushing people's hot buttons.

Talk to Corran he knows all about it.

 

[PookySmiley]

Tolerance does seem to be a trait of the jackass...

(party).
Christians, only the other hand, vary on their level of tolerance towards their fellow (wo)man.

Not always. Some jackasses (party members) are only tolerant of those who aren't Christian, conservative, and white males.

 

[PookySmiley]

I'm not sure what the obsession about "natural" is anyway. Does anyone refuse a pacemaker because it is not natural?

Yes. Christian Scientists. My friend couldn't even get glasses until she was an adult because of her parents' belief.

 

[PookySmiley]

Note that humans are rational animals and should not take cues on propriety from beasts.

True, otherwise we'd be sleeping in the barn (as opposed to "Close the door! Were you raised in a barn") and pooping in the field. (exception: Camping Trips)
Levity Over

 

[PookySmiley]

The high recidivism rates of pedophiles speak to the contrary.

You're wrong there. Studies show that convicted pedophiles have an unusually low rate of recidivism, < 2%

 

[PookySmiley]

Christianity is faith - the belief in something despite the lack of evidence. Such belief is baseless.

Belief is without evidence provable to the non-believer. Otherwise it is knowledge.

 

[Brennin]

Okay. When I asserted that no justification was required for homosexual sex between consenting adults, I intended to convey that I think so because I perceive no harm caused by such an act, and I consider an action which causes harm to no one to be morally-neutral, and thus not requiring justification. I am curious; with which part(s) of this thought process do you disagree?

1. Homosexual sex between consenting adults does not cause harm.

2. Actions that cause no harm are morally-neutral.

3. Morally-neutral acts do not require justification.

4. Other (please specify).

Thanks for being patient. Getting down to the "brass" tacks," I can't say I share your utilitarian philosophy. I realize you wanted more of an explanation than that, though, so I suppose I would specifically dispute your points 1 and 2.

1. It can cause harm to family, friends, and the homosexuals in question. However, even where homosexual sex does not cause apparent harm, it is still a disordered act and a soul-imperiling error.

2. I am not certain "causes no [perceived] harm" is sufficient. If evil is the privation of good, is that a sufficient criterion?

In any event, I think the following quotation from one of my favorite philosophers is instructive:

I answer that, Evil is more comprehensive than sin, as also is good than right. For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain end, and lacking due order to that end. Now the due order to an end is measured by some rule...But when an action strays from this rectitude, it comes under the notion of sin.

Now in those things that are done by the will, the proximate rule is the human reason, while the supreme rule is the Eternal Law. When, therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin. Now it is evident from what has been said (19, 3,4) that every voluntary action that turns aside from the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, is evil, and that every good action is in accord with reason and the Eternal Law. Hence it follows that a human action is right or sinful by reason of its being good or evil.

 

[crazyfingers]

Belief is without evidence provable to the non-beleiver. Otherwise it is knowledge.

And please provide the evidence that makes it knowable.

Or are you saying that one must believe it first before one can regard it as knowable? That's rather circular. You must believe to believe? It sounds like nonsense to me.

 

[TooCurious]

Thanks for being patient. Getting down to the "brass" tacks," I can't say I share your utilitarian philosophy. I realize you wanted more of an explanation than that, though, so I suppose I would specifically dispute your points 1 and 2.

1. It can cause harm to family, friends, and the homosexuals in question. However, even where homosexual sex does not cause apparent harm, it is still a disordered act and a soul-imperiling error.

2. I am not certain "causes no [perceived] harm" is sufficient. If evil is the privation of good, is that a sufficient criterion?

In any event, I think the following quotation from one of my favorite philosophers is instructive:

I answer that, Evil is more comprehensive than sin, as also is good than right. For every privation of good, in whatever subject, is an evil: whereas sin consists properly in an action done for a certain end, and lacking due order to that end. Now the due order to an end is measured by some rule...But when an action strays from this rectitude, it comes under the notion of sin.

Now in those things that are done by the will, the proximate rule is the human reason, while the supreme rule is the Eternal Law. When, therefore, a human action tends to the end, according to the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, then that action is right: but when it turns aside from that rectitude, then it is said to be a sin. Now it is evident from what has been said (19, 3,4) that every voluntary action that turns aside from the order of reason and of the Eternal Law, is evil, and that every good action is in accord with reason and the Eternal Law. Hence it follows that a human action is right or sinful by reason of its being good or evil.

Thank you for your response. Waiting wasn't a problem.

Before I address the core point of your post, I think it's important that I clarify that in my previous point 1, I intended to convey that the act of homosexual sex, in itself, does not cause harm (as I understand the word "harm"). Individual cases may involve other factors which may be construed as harmful, such as infidelity or the transmission of disease, but the harm is caused by those factors, not the act of sex itself. I hope I'm making the distinction sufficiently clear?

Now, to address what I think was the main point of your response. I'm going to paraphrase, to make sure that I understand what you were saying (and if I am mistaken, please correct me). I understood you to say that whether or not a given action causes harm is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it is right or wrong. Indeed, there is a certain 'order' to the universe, to which human behavior should conform, and behavior that does not so conform is wrong. Do I understand you correctly?

If I do, my question is this: on what is this order founded? If it is divinely mandated, are their rational reasons for this order, or is it arbitrary? If the system of order is not divinely-granted, why is it important to follow it, and what consequences are there for doing otherwise?

 

[Texas Lynn]

It is against the natural order for everyone.

Hey, whatever.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, it ain't.

Well, that was convincing...but not that the point was valid.

 

[Texas Lynn]

You are in error.

That too.

 

[Texas Lynn]

What if someone believes in God, but doesn't believe homosexuality to be immoral?

It's mostly unrearkable except in certain quarters.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Not at all. All love doesn't include sex.

Sure. And just what are you seeking to imply by stating the obvious?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Not always. Some jackasses (party members) are only tolerant of those who aren't Christian, conservative, and white males.

Ohhh...Kay. I'm thinking this is the sort of post to which the best response is "Ummmm".

 

[Texas Lynn]

It [homosexuality, apprently]can cause harm to family, friends, and the homosexuals in question.

Uh...evidence?

However, even where homosexual sex does not cause apparent harm, it is still a disordered act and a soul-imperiling error.

I don't know. This kind of sounds like my Dad saying reading in the dim light can ruin your eyes. It's kind of fun when these old wives' tales get passed on but the crux of that statement is it sounds like a pompous fist-shaking pronouncement from some mad scientist in a 1950s grade Z horror movie.

 

[KittyPryde]

Not always. Some jackasses (party members) are only tolerant of those who aren't Christian, conservative, and white males.

You make me laugh! Sounds like a ditto-head Rush Limpbaugh remark.

Care to take a look in a mirror? Remember, the image you see will be reversed.