Originally posted by josephwTo condemn a fellow human being for their sexual orientation, according to the principles I laid out, is not morally sound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellect.
What's preventing you from joining the majority of the human race that condemns homosexuality? Is it your superior intellect?
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwSo in other words, if the majority of humans consider something immoral, then it is objectively immoral?
If it was illegal to commit homosexual acts, would you place homosexuals on the list of people considered criminal?
If most people considered homosexuality criminal would you join the crowd in condemning the criminality of homosexuality?
I think you would since it is the crowd, a small minority, that you are aligning yourself with now.
What's preven ...[text shortened]... ining the majority of the human race that condemns homosexuality? Is it your superior intellect?
19 Jun 16
FMF: I would consider [the criminalization of homosexuality] a morally unsound law.There's some circular logic at work in your assertion, I think.
Originally posted by josephw
It would be a just law to protect the innocent.
Oh so what do you mean by "protect the innocent"? Oh, that's referring to the non-homosexuals. So the homosexuals are guilty of something, are they? Yes, that's why there's a law to protect the innocent.
Originally posted by josephwI admit that I was being a little provocative based on your previous tactic of using scripture to insult me. However, like you asking if I found the thought of Robbie carrobie with his short down appealing, I was also being a bit tongue-in-cheek with it, so no harm done. 🙂
I don't dislike you dive. We get under each other's skin is all. 😉
Originally posted by mghrn55Sir please let us take a look at your statement. In reply to,
Humans weren't supposed to fly either.
Trying to pretend that you are taking a position based on other than religious beliefs isn't fooling anyone in this discussion.
'The physiology of the human body makes it clear that homosexuality is unnatural', you state, 'humans weren't supposed to fly either', a peculiar Ralph Wiggum type of statement. It appears to me to be a non sequitur for a number of reasons. Firstly that even if humans are not designed to fly it does not negate the fact that human physiology makes is clear that certain homosexual practices are unnatural being contrary to the function and physiology of the human body. Secondly it does not even follow on from what went previously there being NO logical connection.
Secondly you have assumed that I am engaging in a pretence in order to 'fool' the contributors of this forum, a rather odious claim. That I have not included a religious aspect may be due to a number of other factors that you have failed to consider, for example the intent was not to provide a religious basis but an empirical one. Thus I suspect because of a proclivity for assuming values and projecting those values as if they have any reality beyond your own cynicism it has led you to make quite frankly some rather absurd and unsubstantiated claims.
Please try to be more careful in future its rather tedious having to take you apart piece by piece and put you back together again.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwHow fortunate that you were able to duck in time.
Life can throw some very wicked hard balls at some. Granted. For those of us who have managed to duck in time before being struck down it is difficult to imagine the pain others who were not so fortunate must feel.
I used the term "disturbed" to describe homosexuality. I don't get a charge out of that. But there are many forms of disturbances that effect ...[text shortened]... n it goes.
If we remove accountability we diminish our humanity. Perhaps you follow my point.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFWhat's your point? I never said anything about condemning homosexuals. What I said was that homosexuals and their supporters are disturbed.
To condemn a fellow human being for their sexual orientation, according to the principles I laid out, is not morally sound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellect.
Try sticking to what I said instead of adding to it.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFWhat do you think the law is for? To protect the guilty?
There's some circular logic at work in your assertion, I think.
Oh so what do you mean by "protect the innocent"? Oh, that's referring to the non-homosexuals. So the homosexuals are guilty of something, are they? Yes, that's why there's a law to protect the innocent.