»Is homosexuality immoral?«

Not true. Did I attribute 'no rationality' to language? No, I think that language is very rational. The same is true of morality.

Why are you bringing Hitler into this conversation?

You are not understanding. Let me rephrase. You attribute no objectivity to the moral code.

I think there is an objectively RIGHT way to use language. In the same way I think there is an objectively RIGHT way to act morally.

These two statements are contradictory. If "i should avoid hitting that person" is truly logical on its own, we don't need "reasons."

As I pointed out, this is not a moral reason for not hitting someone. It is a self-centered reason. You already stated that self-centeredness is what morality "combats."

There could always be a case where you could get away with hitting someone scot-free.

You are still trying to prove your morality through self-centeredness. It will never work. You've already stated that we should "combat" selfishness, remember?

In fact, your entire argument breaks down when you expect me to follow compassion, instead of what might be logically beneficial for me.

I have already defined what morality is. Now you are trying to define it in a different way.

You have also claimed that morality is based on compassion. Compassion is merely a feeling I have. I can also feel hatred. You need to supply supply a reason for choosing compassion over hatred.

I'm assuming we're dealing with a base person who is completely motivated by self-interest to avoid making any assumptions about a person's empathy and compassion.

It doesn't matter what scenario you make up. The point is, selfishness will never cause a person to be completely moral.

Or, he could have a REAL reason, because it is moral to do so.

You have utterly failed to set up your morality.

The fact is that we follow similar moral rules because there are traits about us which exist which allow society to exist. We are a moral 'form of life' and if we did not have a certain degree of morality then society would not develop. The best adapting society is always the one that allows for change.

Now it seems to me that desires which encourage us to work better as a community and to help those around us allow for a better overall society. Those societies containing people with these desires of compassion and tolerance are far more likely to survive that those where no one cares about anyone but themselves.

It seems to me that there is always an objective 'best course of action' and that it is bad that there is a minority of people to whom the desire to act in this way does not come AT ALL naturally.

I might agree with the moral "do what promotes the common good." But, if this moral is set up as the absolute, with no regard for the rest of the morality of humanity, things like Euthenasia may begin to look like logical moral moves. If old people put a strain on the economy, it could be considered the "common good" to eliminate them.

Nice, start off your response with a truly stupid comment. You make this too easy.

What I said was that the moral code is logical on its own. It doesn't require faith, as does Christianity; it requires logic.

Let's try something, stinkz. How about you remove your head from your ass and try reading responses. I've already addressed this twice.

The only way in which there can be no reciprocity for an action is if you are the only human on the planet. In which case, a moral code is somewhat irrelevant.

Like I said above, already addressed. Remove head from ass before further response

The moral code is, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." It is not, "Serve yourself."

I did not claim that! Wow, by this point, I'm pretty certain you must simply be dense. As I stated above:

That is the whole reason that I presented this moral code from a selfish point of view --- to demonstrate that even self-centered people have a logical, rather than a faith-based, reason to follow this moral code.

And like I've said countless times, what I'm demonstrating is that even a selfish person has motivation to follow this moral code.

Regardless, this is a tangental discussion. The only burden of proof on me here is to demonstrate that a godless code of morality does not require faith.

By doing so, I have demonstrated that my moral code does not require faith to state that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

If a person interested in eugenics says 'let's kill that mentally disabled person because they cannot contribute to society' then they are making an assumption which, to be honest, they cannot possibly justify.

Might I ask you the same question. How do you justify 'doing what God wills'? Is it solely because of a fear of hell or the promise of heaven? Do you not have another deeper reason? Would there be no point in keeping God's will if God did not exist?

There are different kinds of rewards. There is the reward which has no natural connection with the things you do to earn it and is quite foreign to the desires that ought to accompatny those things. Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money. But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not a mercenary for desiring it [...] marriage is the proper reward of love. The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but are the activity itself in consummation. [...]. Those who attained everlasting life in the vision of God doubtless know very well that it is no mere bribe, but the very consummation of their earthly discipleship

A statement that is logical "on its own" is one like "A triangle has 3 sides." What are the reasons that a triangle has three sides? There are none. It just does.

You have said this many times, and I have proven, over and over, that it is not true. The fact that I don't want to hit someone because they will hit me back, does NOT MAKE not hitting them moral.

If it did, then the fact that I want to kill them because they might hit me, would also be moral

Your proof is as follows: 1. I believe morality because it is logical 2. Morality is logical because, being self-centered, I want to avoid harm 3. Avoiding harm by harming someone else is immoral.

I think I've figured it out. You don't REALLY think you are coming up with a logical basis for morality.

If morality is not based on compassion and empathy, then it is based on nothing.

I could set up the moral code "be completely and utterly selfish." This would be more "logical" than your code! We should not follow a particular morality because it is "logical" (as you mean it)!

In fact, the axiom, "Do what is in one's own best interest," is the basic principle that morality must combat.

Now, your turn. If it were definitively proven tomorrow that the Christian god does not exist, then what would make homosexualiy immoral?

That's because it's a definition. A definition doesn't require logic, it requires blind faith. Really, did you go to school?

You have said this many times, and I have proven, over and over, that it is not true. The fact that I don't want to hit someone because they will hit me back, does NOT MAKE not hitting them moral.

No luck removing your head from your ass, huh? Well, here's hoping... It's like dealing with a slow child, only worse --- at least a slow child learns.

Now, here's another challenge for you. Demonstrate why a self-centered person without empathy and compassion would want to obey Christianity.

I could set up the moral code "be completely and utterly selfish." This would be more "logical" than your code! We should not follow a particular morality because it is "logical" (as you mean it)!

Tiefling you are being very mean here.

That, my friend, was hideously condescending. That showed a complete disregard for Stinkz's opinions. You should really apologise for that.

Let me just check here Tiefling. Are you trying to suggest that someone can still follow moral principles even if they are completely selfish? I think there are some problems here. The most obvious being the example of the 'psychopath' (no I don't mean serial killers).

That's because it's a definition. A definition doesn't require logic, it requires blind faith.

Yes it does, if morality is defined as not doing to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

First, you have to answer the question, "Do you want someone to kill you?" If you don't want someone to kill you, then you shouldn't kill other people.

The logical justification, assuming we are dealing with a completely selfish person who doesn't give a damn about doing the right thing,

Demonstrate why a self-centered person without empathy and compassion would want to obey Christianity.

rofl. You feeling delusional today or something?

1. Stinkz says that if morality is not based on compassion and empathy, then it is based on nothing

Oh? Why would that be more logical?

I can demonstrate that nothing would ever be accomplished without a moral code, whereas under my moral code, there is motivation for people to work with one another.

By the way, you have still failed to respond, as both fatpie and I independently requested:

If it were definitively proven tomorrow that the Christian god does not exist, then what would make homosexualiy immoral?

I do what is right and good solely because they ought to be done.