»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 stinkz: Hurting others is still immoral. But you open the door to "Hurtin other is immoral except in cases of working towards a divine purpose" That's how the Christian religion declined. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 Then anything that hurts others while failing to prevent greater or equal harm is wrong, yes? So if someone condemns a gay couple, thus hurting their feelings, then are committing a moral act, yes. The reason I say this is that the gay couple are hurting no one. The person condemning the couple is hurting the gay couple and preventing harm to no one. Thus it is wrong to condemn a gay couple! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: What a surprise. I could have told you you believe that, before you had to take a class. You believe in the secularist ethic, like most everyone on this forum.  , well, to clarify, before I took the class, I felt that morality was relative. Afterward, I felt that there should be moral absolutes.stinkz: However, this ethic is only a fragment of the real morality of humanity. But if there were no god, then would the "real morality of humanity" that you reference have any sort of justification? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: The person condemning the couple is hurting the gay couple and preventing harm to no one. Those who show the gay couple that their actions are sinful, are helping them spiritually. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: fatpie42: The person condemning the couple is hurting the gay couple and preventing harm to no one. Those who show the gay couple that their actions are sinful, are helping them spiritually. Sinful? How are they sinful? There's next to no biblical backing for that one, and I've seen that argument so many times ;( posted by bluewolf |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stinkz argument with us seems to go something like this: 1. Stinkz tells us that homosexuality is wrong We ask why. 2. Stinkz says that it is written in the Bible and is thus part of the 'traditional morality'. We ask why we should care about the Bible 3. Stinkz says: It's unreasonable not to follow the Bible's code of ethics. We ask what is unreasonable about it. 4. Stinkz says not following the Biblical code of ethics is unhelpful to the spirit. We ask how Stinkz KNOWS that it is unhelpful to the spirit even when the supposedly 'sinful' acts cause no physical or mental harm to anyone. 5. Stinkz tells us that he knows that homosexuality causes spiritual harm because the Bible says so. And thus the argument has come full circle. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Those who show the gay couple that their actions are sinful, are helping them spiritually. Stinkz, you are disproving yourself and you state statements like I have predicted. Stinkz: "There is a higher moral than secularists' moral" KNN: "You open the door for any kind of hostile action, since any kind of action can be justified by stating that one follows a higher moral" Stinkz: "No, hurting someone is still immoral" KNN: "But you open the door to "Hurting other is immoral except in cases of working towards a divine purpose" Stinkz: "Even when I hurt gays, it helps them spiritually" And voila, stinkz proved why Christians are so dangerous. Let the witchhunting begin. Now, I wouldn't say anything, if Christianity had the methods to PROVE that homosexuality is indeed a lower (perverted) state than heterosexuality and if Christianity could MAKE heterosexuals out of homosexuals. But they can't. If secularist don't watch Christians they would start another centuries of terror. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: And thus the argument has come full circle. Yah, right... fatpie42: 2. Stinkz says that it is written in the Bible and is thus part of the 'traditional morality'.
We ask why we should care about the Bible You just went backwards. We should care about the Bible because it is a part of "traditional morality." fatpie42: We ask how Stinkz KNOWS that it is unhelpful to the spirit Because traditional morality resoundingly says so. That was quite a pitiful attempt at twisting my reasoning to form a circle. My moral reasoning is based on the axioms of traditional morality. Your moral beliefs, and most everyone else's here, are based upon what society and government has told you. Many, many Germans were decieved in the same way you were. knn: Even when I hurt gays, it helps them spiritually Knn, how do you live with yourself when you consistantly and purposefully misrepresent people? I in no way said I could "hurt" gays. Telling them the error of their ways, or even prohibiting their immoral behavior is not "hurting" them, but benefiting them. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Knn, how do you live with yourself when you consistantly and purposefully misrepresent people? I in no way said I could "hurt" gays. Telling them the error of their ways, or even prohibiting their immoral behavior is not "hurting" them, but benefiting them. Based on pure opinion. As such, I could tell you, based on, say, another religion, that you're going to hell for your immoral actions of...[random example] intolerance. It doesn't mean either of us is right. I could prohibit your immoral behaviour by restricting your freedom of speech [so as not to express your intolerance] and tell you the error of your ways. posted by bluewolf |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Knn, how do you live with yourself when you consistantly and purposefully misrepresent people? I in no way said I could "hurt" gays. Telling them the error of their ways, or even prohibiting their immoral behavior is not "hurting" them, but benefiting them. Aaah, stinkz, I guess everyone except you sees what's wrong with this statement. No wonder intelligent people wanted the separation of chruch and state. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: My moral reasoning is based on the axioms of traditional morality. Your moral beliefs, and most everyone else's here, are based upon what society and government has told you. But traditional morality is nothing but that. TRADITIONAL morality. Traditions. Not all traditions are bad, but they are not absolute truths. Moreover if the government says it for centuries, it's traditional, too. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz, am I right in thinking you are stating the most fallacial thing ever, which is that actions themselves can be evil? Perhaps we'd like to extend that? Would "kissing" be a moral or immoral action? What about "heterosexual sex"? Every time there is a new action performed, do you get to decide whether or not it's immoral? Moreover, where do you gain the authority to 'correct' homosexuals from? Spirituality? Oh sure, that's a great plan. Let's regress to the Divine Right of Kings why don't we? "I'm on the throne and get to choose what to do to you because God says so." Welcome to the 21st century, we like objectivism nowadays. You've done nothing to prove that your views on homosexuals are nothing more than irrational and subjective. Moreover, perhaps you'd like to explain what exactly you mean by "perversion"? Perversion of what? Procreation? If so, stinkz, sex isn't solely for procreation. If it was, things like eugenics ♣ would be justifiable, because you would have to refuse that society has surpassed "nartural selection by reproduction" and has moved onto memes. And one of the major memes of these days is that sex is recreational; a fact that is backed up regularly by the notable erogenous nature of sex. Incidentally, would you also like to suggest what else is perverted? Sex with someone twenty years younger than you maybe? Or even masturbation. God knows, maybe two impotent people having sex is a perversion, because that's certainly not procreative. And if you dare try to use the Bible to back your silly 10th century totalitarian doctrinal ideals, you will look an utter fool, not only for attempting to once again breach objective/subjective borders on an unproved belief level, but also for ignoring bluewolf's quoted points. Anyway, that's just some food for thought for the time being. posted by Nico |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nico: Welcome to the 21st century, we like objectivism nowadays. You've done nothing to prove that your views on homosexuals are nothing more than irrational and subjective. I must protect stinkz here a bit. It _IS_ actually a valid argument that "homosexuals" have not been liked/accepted thruout long centuries. After all, stinkz articulates some typical attitude. In other words: It might be irrational, but it's not purely subjective. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is indeed a valid argument that homosexuals haven't been liked particularly in Europe since the end of the Roman era, before which there was a much greater level of tolerance (some knowledge of the Roman and Greek cultures and traditions includes a great amount of reference to homosexuality not being as derided as it its nowadays; in Greek society homosexual sex appears to even have been practiced as a form of 'safe sex'). This, however, cannot be extended to therefore calling homosexuality a perversion beyond the limits of "social trends", which it might be perverting. Certainly, naturally, there are very few elements of perversion to it; it has been noted to occur numerous times in the animal kingdom not including humans, although some "anti-gays" would propose that this is merely 'practice' on the parts of both lesbian and gay creatures. However, it's difficult, in my opinion, to objectively discredit homosexuality. Examples of it 'destroying society' or 'family values' are hard to come by given that libertarianism has been espoused recently as a good system, mostly thanks to the acceptance of Ayn Rand's philosophies (whether that's a good or bad thing is another matter). Our understanding of the human psyche and mentality cannot justify that children raised by homosexuals are "inferior" to those raised by homosexuals any more than saying "well, they're more likely to accept homosexuality": were this to be an objectively bad thing, there would be legs to stand on, but that's not really the case: you have to first believe that homosexuality is bad before you can claim that accepting it is also bad; hence, we fall into circular logic which is clearly once again fallacial. Basically: there are cases in precedence for other "historically hated" classes which are now accepted; as bad a choice as this may be, in Europe and North America, darkskinned people were regarded as slaves. Obviously this is no longer the case; hence trying to base an argument entirely on tradition when there are obvious recent case in precedences against it is a bad plan. I'm sure you realise that of course  posted by Nico |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nico: Incidentally, would you also like to suggest what else is perverted? Sex with someone twenty years younger than you maybe? Or even masturbation. God knows, maybe two impotent people having sex is a perversion, because that's certainly not procreative. Maybe MILF _IS_ mentioned somewhere in the bible  Nico: but also for ignoring bluewolf's quoted points. I moved them into a new topic: IMO → Where does the bible write homosexuality is bad? Nico: Let's regress to the Divine Right of Kings why don't we? Stinkz won't laugh anymore when he finds out that the forum admin has the right of the first night... harhar  <-- admin
 <-- my first night with stinkz' wife
posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 6 October 2008, 22:45 php B.B. |