Secular argument against gay marriage

[gracepoole]

“It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that children living in very close proximity to homosexuals are undoubtedly exposed to a greater risk of HIV and other venereal diseases given the higher incidence of those diseases among homosexuals.” I’m sorry, this “exposure” takes place how, via toilet seats? I’m not trying to be snarky here, but I am pointing out that this claim is dependent on equating homosexuals with pedophiles.

 

[inocente]

Your alacrity reveals a lack of attention to detail. The authors of the first research article admitted they are “unlikely to have captured other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age”. It would be presumptuous of others to claim they have done so.

Clutching at straws. All scientists qualify their findings. You have provided no evidence whatsoever for your outrageous assertion that all homosexuals are less good at parenting than most heterosexuals.

Then children should be less content, less developed and less fulfilled with homosexuals? The onus is on you to prove they are even equally content, developed and fulfilled given the undeniable physical and psychological differences between the sexes.
To ignore the ability of homosexuals to replace the mother reveals a total lack of concern for the children’s feelings.

As you are now saying “equally content”, I take it you’ve conceded that you were wrong earlier when you required that to be placed with homosexuals children must be “more content, more developed and more fulfilled” than with heterosexuals.

And having accused me of ad hominem, very next post you do it big time.

*To think homosexual adoption workers are unbiased and heterosexual adoption workers are uninfluenced by the fashionable - and politically correct - trend is hopelessly unrealistic. There is indeed a higher level of risk - of losing their jobs! They know full well they would be accused of discrimination and taken to court if they dared to step out of line, especially in the UK and other countries where gay marriage has been legalised. *

You made the outrageous insinuation that homosexual adoption workers are unprofessional and that adoption workers in general fail to see risks which only you appear to be able to see, as you have never provided any evidence whatsoever.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that children living in very close proximity to homosexuals are undoubtedly exposed to a greater risk of HIV and other venereal diseases given the higher incidence of those diseases among homosexuals.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to make that outrageous claim, and you continually refuse to provide evidence.

*The function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological not cultural. *

Women don’t have functions, perhaps you could stop thinking of them as machines.

Having been a virtually fatherless child I can assure you a man’s role is not as superfluous as you imply.

It is irrational to extrapolate your subjective childhood experiences to the entire world.

*The function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological and not cultural. *

Women don’t have functions, perhaps you could stop thinking of them as machines.

The principle of equality is not identical with the principle of love. It is more akin to an eye for an eye - with no allowance for clemency. A very strange notion of the Golden Rule!

Off-topic and mightily confused.

That was the very term you used - as well as “relative”.

*The failure to admit that the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological speaks for itself. *

Women don’t have functions, perhaps you could stop thinking of them as machines.

The issue is not discrimination but the distinction between male and female attributes.

A claim for which you have never provided one jot of evidence.

Extreme cases amount to special pleading. It stands to reason that two men cannot understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman and two women cannot understand an adolescent boy as well as a man. The authors of the research article admitted they are “unlikely to have captured other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age”.

No, it does not stand to reason and you know it, since you have never provided one jot of evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

“It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that children living in very close proximity to homosexuals are undoubtedly exposed to a greater risk of HIV and other venereal diseases given the higher incidence of those diseases among homosexuals.” I’m sorry, this “exposure” takes place how, via toilet seats? I’m not trying to be snarky here, but I am pointing out that this claim is dependent on equating homosexuals with pedophiles.

If homosexuals act as loving parents don’t they kiss and cuddle their adopted children, wash them, taste their food, use the same facilities and tend to all their physical needs? If they don’t live in very close proximity they are certainly not fit to replace a mother and father. The transmission of disease is not restricted to toilet seats…

 

[tonyrey]

The authors of the first research article admitted they are “unlikely to have captured other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age”. It would be presumptuous of others to claim they have done so.

The failure to capture “other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age” is irrefutable evidence that the research articles are insufficient to justify the conclusion that homosexuals can understand the needs of adolescent children of the opposite sex.

As you are now saying “equally content”, I take it you’ve conceded that you were wrong earlier when you required that to be placed with homosexuals children must be “more content, more developed and more fulfilled” than with heterosexuals.

To describe the use of the term “even” as an admission of error is a desperate ploy to evade the relevance of the ability of homosexuals to replace the mother - the denial of which reveals a total lack of concern for the children’s welfare and feelings.

You made the outrageous insinuation that homosexual adoption workers are unprofessional and that adoption workers in general fail to see risks which only you appear to be able to see, as you have never provided any evidence whatsoever.

The Catholic Children’s Society in the UK has been forced to close simply because it it did not select homosexuals as foster parents.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that children living in very close proximity to homosexuals are undoubtedly exposed to a greater risk of HIV and other venereal diseases given the higher incidence of those diseases among homosexuals.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to make that outrageous claim, and you continually refuse to provide evidence.

“High incidence of anal high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions among HIV-positive and HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men.”

journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/1998/05000/High_incidence_of_anal_high_grade_squamous.11.aspx

Context Studies conducted in the late 1980s on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among older men who have sex with men (MSM) suggested the epidemic had peaked; however, more recent studies in younger MSM have suggested continued high HIV incidence.

Objective To investigate the current state of the HIV epidemic among adolescent and young adult MSM in the United States by assessing the prevalence of HIV infection and associated risks in this population in metropolitan areas.

Design The Young Men’s Survey, a cross-sectional, multisite, venue-based survey conducted from 1994 through 1998.

Setting One hundred ninety-four public venues frequented by young MSM in Baltimore, Md; Dallas, Tex; Los Angeles, Calif; Miami, Fla; New York, NY; the San Francisco (Calif) Bay Area; and Seattle, Wash.

Results Prevalence of HIV infection was high (overall, 7.2%; range for the 7 areas, 2.2%-12.1%) and increased with age, from 0% among 15-year-olds to 9.7% among 22-year-olds. Conclusions Among these young MSM, HIV prevalence was high, underscoring the need to evaluate and intensify prevention efforts for young MSM, particularly blacks, men of mixed race or ethnicity, Hispanics, and adolescents.

jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192876

The failure to admit that the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child is biological speaks for itself.

Women don’t have functions, perhaps you could stop thinking of them as machines.

All human beings have biological functions.

The issue is not discrimination but the distinction between male and female attributes.

A claim for which you have never provided one jot of evidence.

Men do not have the natural ability to be impregnated, bear and suckle babies.

Extreme cases amount to special pleading. It stands to reason that two men cannot understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman and two women cannot understand an adolescent boy as well as a man. The authors of the research article admitted they are “unlikely to have captured other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age”.

No, it does not stand to reason and you know it, since you have never provided one jot of evidence.

Men do not menstruate or have the same psychological problems as adolescent girls.

 

[inocente]

The failure to capture “other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age” is irrefutable evidence that the research articles are insufficient to justify the conclusion that homosexuals can understand the needs of adolescent children of the opposite sex.

Clutching at straws. Those dynamics could go in any direction. The evidence is that children are not disadvantaged by growing up with homosexual parents, meaning we can conclude that homosexuals understand their needs just as well as heterosexuals since otherwise they would be disadvantaged and they are not.

*To describe the use of the term “even” as an admission of error is a desperate ploy to evade the relevance of the ability of homosexuals to replace the mother - the denial of which reveals a total lack of concern for the children’s welfare and feelings.
*

Another personal attack. I’m just the messenger, it’s not my fault you don’t have a case.

The Catholic Children’s Society in the UK has been forced to close simply because it it did not select homosexuals as foster parents.

Nothing to do with the point, which was your insinuation that homosexual adoption workers are unprofessional and that adoption workers in general fail to see risks for which you have never provided any evidence whatsoever.

btw where is this closed “Catholic Children’s Society”? The only one I can find with that name is here but it’s alive and well.

*“High incidence of anal high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions among HIV-positive and HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men.”

journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/1998/05000/High_incidence_of_anal_high_grade_squamous.11.aspx*

Clutching at straws. In your haste to impress you don’t appear to have read the abstract - HSIL is more usually found in heterosexual women. We can all find impressive sounding papers with Google but unless we’re medically trained it’s probably best not to try.

So then, still waiting for that elusive evidence. :compcoff:

jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192876

Here we go again. Does that mean that the 28% of South African schoolgirls who are HIV positive have gay parents? Please have another go, this time remembering that what you’re looking for is evidence for your claim that children placed with gay parents have higher incidence of infections.

All human beings have biological functions.

Correct, but that’s somewhat removed from your claim that the function of a woman is to bear, suckle and care for her child.

Men do not have the natural ability to be impregnated, bear and suckle babies.

Clearly, but your claim, for which you have never provided any evidence, was about two men or two women not being as good at raising a child or adolescent, where those abilities are not exactly relevant.

Men do not menstruate or have the same psychological problems as adolescent girls.

Clearly, but men can ask their female friends and relations for advice. Or did that not occur to you?

 

[CandideWest]

So is your paradigm for what is a moral sexual encounter: Consenting adults who aren’t married?

??? Again, I fear you may have misread my post. I was asked to identify a sexual act which is IMMORAL. The example I provided is a married man cheating on his wife (having sex with someone else).

 

[CandideWest]

The “chewing gum” argument is not my argument - it’s yours. All I’m pointing out is that your conclusion that chewing gum is disordered doesn’t follow from the premise.

As I said, your arguments (or counter arguments if you prefer) do not affect the original logic. The same route still shows both homosexual acts and chewing gum to be disordered.

Again, currently it looks as though we must either conclude that both or neither are disordered based on this logic.

If you would like to offer an alternative argument showing that homosexual sex is “disordered” then by all means go ahead. Alternatively we can just drop the “homosexual sex is disordered” argument entirely.

 

[CandideWest]

It may have been claimed somewhere in this thread that gay marriage is disordered and that same sex behaviour is immoral, but I don’t believe anyone argued that same sex marriage is immoral because it is disordered (premise 3 in the first argument above).

No, it was not argued that gay marriage is disordered, it was argued that homosexual sex is disordered, and therefore gay marriage is wrong.

What was claimed is that same sex unions cannot properly be called marriages because they are disordered,

Not as far as I’ve seen thus far, indeed the arguments appears to be specifically about homosexual sex being disordered. A position that the catechism seems to support.

Hence why I am exploring the argument to determine if there is any secular basis for arguing that homosexual sex is “disordered” or for that matter “immoral”. Thus far the only vaguely secular argument I have discovered which works is the one I wrote out. However, this also shows chewing gum to be “disordered”.

Same sex unions cannot be properly called marriages because they are not ordered towards reproduction of human life.

Yes, this is the argument that has been put forwards with regards to marriage being redefined to be all about procreation and has been countered with the fact that infertile people can marry.

Just to be clear, that is a separate argument to the one I was exploring.

The question of whether they are moral or not can be determined by other considerations. Chewing gum is not “ordered towards” providing nutrients, so it is not “eating.” If someone were to claim they are eating when chewing gum, they would be mistaken because the process of chewing gum does not fulfill the requirements of what eating is, properly defined.

Er, perhaps you didn’t get as far as reading the first line of the argument I wrote out? It defines the purpose of chewing, if you disagree with that purpose then by all means challenge it, but I think you may have an uphill struggle convincing biologists.

Again, just because some have argued that same sex unions are disordered, does not mean that is the reason for claiming them to be immoral. There may be other justifiable reasons for making that claim on other grounds.

Ok, do you know of any? If not then I’ll happily just drop the argument that homosexual acts are immoral and we can move on without it.

 

[CandideWest]

Thats adultery. I was talking about fornication and promiscuity between persons not married.

??? A man cheating on his wife (having sex with someone else) is fornication.

So why is the sexual acts of homosexuality being immoral not obvious from axioms which come from our nature?

Because homosexual sex does not necessarily result in suffering any more than heterosexual sex necessarily results in suffering.

and if two people of the same sex can morally engage in such acts, than why would it be immoral for three or more people to engage in sexual acts together?

It isn’t in itself, however, because of our nature as a pair bonding species intimate relations between more than two people are rarely stable or emotionally satisfying for all. Hence it tends to cause suffering which does tend towards making it immoral in a large percentage of cases.

We are I think, surely you understand that we are talking about the sexual acts here right?

If not, don’t worry, I’ll let you debate it out with everyone else on this thread.

Yes, perhaps that would be best. As I said I fear we are starting to circle here.

Because the sexual act is different for them both. When it comes to the sexual acts of homosexuality, such acts are immoral under any and all circumstances.

I know that is your religious belief, but I thought it was also your religious belief that sex using contraception was always immoral too? If so why is it morally better in a married relationship in one instance and not in the other?

Well, that is a conscience my friend, so how do you explain a conscience given that we are just random meaningless beings that will end in nothingness? Real Atheism by it’s very nature is void of any conscience.

We are not random meaningless beings. That we cease when we die does not mean that we are unable to have values or assign purposes while we are alive.

And we have conscience because we evolved as a social species.

Your moral system just looks a bit illogical to atheism.

Why? I’m an atheist and it certainly doesn’t look illogical to me.

Thats a whole lot of nothing.

Thats not what I am concerned about and again alot of lack of data.

haha, Could they be any more vague?

So let me get this straight, these studies were primarly conducted before the end of puberty?

You asked for research, I’ve given you a route to find extensive research on the topic. As I said, different studies use different criteria, and the summary reports I linked to are giving references to other reports.

If all you were looking to do is cherry pick a few quotes and use them to rubbish dozens of published, peer reviewed research papers then I regret bothering to find links for you. I had assumed from our previous discussions that you were genuinely interested.

My primary concern is, what does an adolecent say to themselves about acting on their sexual desires when the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently a part of normal moral family life? When the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently moral?

Hopefully they will say to themselves that discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is wrong.

What sexual morality advice to parents give who are already acting sexually immoral?

I don’t know, why don’t you ask those married couple who are out there right now cheating on their partners?

Do you really think homosexual parents have any legs to stand on when discussing sexual morality with thier adolecent kids?

Well it depends, if the parents are in a long term committed relationship then of course they can say “don’t have sex without being in a committed relationship” if they are married, they could say “don’t have sex until you’re married”.

If they’re out cheating on their partner all the time then they’d struggle to make a case for either. Of course all of the above applies for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples equally.

This is another case where the catholic position of “no sex before marriage” supports gay marriage. Because it enables homosexual parents to advise their children to remain chaste until marriage while not being hypocritical.

How about the fact of bringing a child into this world with the absolute intention to deprive that child of their biological mother or father, not because they think it will benefit the child in any way, but to selfishly benefit themselves?

People on this thread keep using the word “deprive” which strongly implies a detriment. But thus far no evidence has been identified that a children raised with two parents of one gender suffers some detriment. Meanwhile, some evidence has been offered which shows they do not suffer a detriment.

True.

But let me give you a quote about divorce and same sex marriage…

That quote doesn’t seem to have anything in it about gay marriage. Just divorce.

Actually what does an adolecent say to themselves about acting on their own sexual desires, about sexual morality, when people say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral and are accused of “bigotry” “oppressing” and “hate speech”?

Again, hopefully they will realise that discrimination is wrong.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Cheers

 

[PRmerger]

??? Again, I fear you may have misread my post. I was asked to identify a sexual act which is IMMORAL. The example I provided is a married man cheating on his wife (having sex with someone else).

Sorry. I meant is your paradigm for what’s a moral sexual liaison: consenting adults who aren’t married to other people?

 

[PRmerger]

The same route still shows both homosexual acts and chewing gum to be disordered.

No, CW. If we’re going to make an analogy for chewing gum and sexual acts it would be analogous to kissing.

And there is clearly nothing disordered about kissing. It is merely a pleasurable activity, just like chewing gum.

 

[tonyrey]

The failure to capture “other complex dynamics of gender and sexual development that will emerge as children age” is irrefutable evidence that the research articles are insufficient to justify the conclusion that homosexuals can understand the needs of adolescent children of the opposite sex

The intimate needs of adolescent children can only be fully understood by a person of the same sex.

The evidence is that children are not disadvantaged by growing up with homosexual parents, meaning we can conclude that homosexuals understand their needs just as well as heterosexuals since otherwise they would be disadvantaged and they are not.

More to the point is the absence of evidence that children are happier and more fulfilled when they are allocated two male or two female parents and needlessly **deprived of a role model **in the family.

To describe the use of the term “even” as an admission of error is a desperate ploy to evade the relevance of the ability of homosexuals to replace the mother - the denial of which reveals a total lack of concern for the children’s welfare and feelings.

Another personal attack. I’m just the messenger, it’s not my fault you don’t have a case.

It is an **impersonal **attack on the message:

The ability of homosexuals to replace the mother is irrelevant

• the denial of which reveals a total lack of concern for the children’s welfare and feelings.

The Catholic Children’s Society in the UK has been forced to close simply because it it did not select homosexuals as foster parents.

Nothing to do with the point, which was your insinuation that homosexual adoption workers are unprofessional and that adoption workers in general fail to see risks for which you have never provided any evidence whatsoever. btw where is this closed “Catholic Children’s Society”? The only one I can find with that name is here but it’s alive and well.

It exists but it is no longer allowed to arrange adoptions due to the intolerance of the views of the secular majority in this country. Adoption workers would lose their jobs if they acted according to their conscience and refused to arrange adoptions by homosexuals.

“High incidence of anal high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions among HIV-positive and HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men.”

journals.lww.com/aidsonline/A…uamous.11.aspx
In your haste to impress you don’t appear to have read the abstract - HSIL is more usually found in heterosexual women.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article…ticleid=192876
Does that mean that the 28% of South African schoolgirls who are HIV positive have gay parents?

N.B. :

In all 7 US areas, the prevalence of HIV infection and associated sexual risk behaviors were high among these young MSM. Considering their youth, their recent initiation of sexual activity, and the high prevalence of recent unsafe sex, many of the HIV-positive men probably were infected recently. Considering their youth, the high prevalence of recent unsafe sex, and the high HIV prevalence in US MSM, many of the HIV-negative men are likely to become HIV-infected in the near future.

Results from this large sample of young men are consistent with the high prevalence of HIV suggested from smaller samples of young men in single areas,8,11- 12 including the 1992 through 1993 YMS in San Francisco and Berkeley.10 The results are alarming in light of the men’s youth and compared with the HIV prevalence for samples of primarily heterosexual youth in the United States.

jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192876

Please have another go, this time remembering that what you’re looking for is evidence for your claim that children placed with gay parents have higher incidence of infections.

The claim is that it is morally unjustified to expose children to a greater risk of infection from practising homosexuals who share their accommodation and come into close physical contact with them.

All human beings have biological functions.

Correct, but that’s somewhat removed from your claim that the function of a woman is to bear, suckle and care for her child.

The womb, nipples and maternal instinct serve biological needs.

Men do not have the natural ability to be impregnated, bear and suckle babies.

Clearly, but your claim, for which you have never provided any evidence, was about two men or two women not being as good at raising a child or adolescent, where those abilities are not exactly relevant.

The consequences of having been in the womb, suckled and held by the mother do not end in infancy - unless one is determined to ignore the fundamental differences between fatherhood and motherhood. There is something queer about “a fatherly mother” and “a motherly father”…

Men do not menstruate or have the same psychological problems as adolescent girls.

Clearly, but men can ask their female friends and relations for advice. Or did that not occur to you?

Is advice as good as direct knowledge? Can advice from a third party replace thoughts and feelings based on personal experience? Do adolescent girls usually confide in older men?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, it was not argued that gay marriage is disordered, it was argued that homosexual sex is disordered, and therefore gay marriage is wrong.

No it was argued (by me) that homosexual sex is not ordered towards the procreation of new human life and therefore homosexual relationships cannot properly be considered marriages. I never argued that gay marriage was wrong (in a moral sense) because it is disordered (that requires a different argument.) The argument was not that gay marriage was wrong but simply that gay marriage is not at all a “marriage” simply because it is not ordered towards the propagation of new human beings.

Your argument was that chewing was immoral based upon a skewed understanding of the argument. It is not that chewing gum is immoral, but simply that chewing gum cannot properly be considered as eating because it is not ordered towards the proper end of eating, which is to provide the body with nutrients. There is no need to make a moral judgement about chewing and there is no need to make a moral judgement about same sex relationships. It is simply that they cannot be considered “marriages” because they are not ordered towards the proper end of marriage, which is the creation of new human life.

Not as far as I’ve seen thus far, indeed the arguments appears to be specifically about homosexual sex being disordered…

Yup! Homosexual sex is not ordered towards the creation of new life and therefore is “disordered” in terms of not being ordered towards the creation of new life.

If someone claimed that chewing gum should be considered en par with eating, we would, rightfully, answer that chewing gum is not ordered towards supplying nutrients to the body and is therefore disordered relative to that end. Anyone who attempts to call chewing gum, “eating” would simply be incorrect because chewing gum is not ordered towards the proper end of supplying the body with nutrients and is therefore disordered towards that end. No moral judgement need be implied regarding whether chewing gum or homosexual sex is “moral” or not, both are simply disordered in terms of what proponents are attempting to claim about them, i.e., that homosexual sex is properly ordered towards procreation (what the end of marriage is) or that chewing gum is properly ordered towards providing the body with nutrients (what the proper end of eating is).

Hence why I am exploring the argument to determine if there is any secular basis for arguing that homosexual sex is “disordered” or for that matter “immoral”. Thus far the only vaguely secular argument I have discovered which works is the one I wrote out. However, this also shows chewing gum to be “disordered”.

Again, the argument is not that homosexual sex is immoral because it is disordered. The argument is that homosexual unions cannot be properly considered “marriages” because they are “disordered” in terms of the proper end of marriage.

The fact that you do not understand the argument and therefore keep reading into it moral implications is neither here nor there in terms of the cogency of the argument. It is perfectly consistent to claim homosexual unions are disordered as far as marriage is concerned without making the further claim that homosexual sex is, therefore, immoral. It may be immoral, as well as illogical, to promote homosexual pairings as marriages, but it also may be immoral to promote the chewing of gum as “eating” or providing beneficial nutrients among gullible children.

Er, perhaps you didn’t get as far as reading the first line of the argument I wrote out? It defines the purpose of chewing, if you disagree with that purpose then by all means challenge it, but I think you may have an uphill struggle convincing biologists.

As others have pointed out, chewing can serve multiple functions and therefore its relevancy in terms of eating is only incidental. chewing is not a necessary action for eating. I may, in fact, eat some foods (soup, rice, jello, pudding) without chewing them. In fact, some species of animals simply swallow food whole without chewing it. Many do not even have teeth at all. Are you saying they do not eat, then? Yes, by all means let’s go talk to some biologists about the relevance of chewing to eating.

Ok, do you know of any? If not then I’ll happily just drop the argument that homosexual acts are immoral and we can move on without it.

This thread is about whether gay unions can properly be called “marriages,” it need not hinge on the morality of homosexual acts, but only on the real ends of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Heterosexual “marriages” have as their ends the continuation of human individuals in their offspring. That is a definable end that makes these relationships unique and special. The complimentary pair value creating a new life that carries within it aspects of each of them and they do so because of a deep and abiding love for each other and for the new human beings that come into being as a result of that love.

The fact that marriage has its own reality implies nothing about the moral justification of other quite different relationships, only that they are not to be called marriages. Whether they are moral or not depends on another step in the argument: that a morally warranted reason exists for condoning same sex relationships. That does not logically depend on showing they are merely “disordered,” unless the disorder is of moral relevance, which might be true, but needs to be shown with additional premises.
**
It is interesting that you think you can dismiss arguments by simply talking around them without really addressing the relevant points.**

 

[josh987654321]

??? A man cheating on his wife (having sex with someone else) is fornication.

Definition of fornication -

Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.

So the question “Could you please give me an example of what sexual acts with consent (fornication and/or promiscuity) you see as immoral?”

Because homosexual sex does not necessarily result in suffering any more than heterosexual sex necessarily results in suffering.

It isn’t in itself, however, because of our nature as a pair bonding species intimate relations between more than two people are rarely stable or emotionally satisfying for all. Hence it tends to cause suffering which does tend towards making it immoral in a large percentage of cases.

I find it funny that you try to disprove the unnatural aspect of the sexual acts of homosexuality, yet you try to prove the unnatural act of polygamous sexual acts by saying we have evolved to “pair bonding.”

Why have we not evolved to male and female pair bonding? why is male and female irrelevant and yet more than two is relevant to whether the sexual act is immoral or not?

You contradicted your own argument when you said

because of our nature as a pair bonding species

So why is our nature as male and female irrelevent to such sexual intimacy?

Yes, perhaps that would be best. As I said I fear we are starting to circle here.

Okay.

I know that is your religious belief, but I thought it was also your religious belief that sex using contraception was always immoral too? If so why is it morally better in a married relationship in one instance and not in the other?

Using contraception is immoral and the reason why I said the married situation was better, was because it doesn’t add fornication on top of that.

It is not better in a homosexual relationship, because we are talking about an entirely different sexual act. The sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral regardless of circumstance.

You keep rejecting “design” but I don’t know why you can’t see that for example the Anus is not designed to accomodate such sexual organs and these are the kind of sexual acts you are claiming as moral.

We are not random meaningless beings. That we cease when we die does not mean that we are unable to have values or assign purposes while we are alive.

And we have conscience because we evolved as a social species.

Why? I’m an atheist and it certainly doesn’t look illogical to me.

Im glad you have a conscience.

May I ask, what value is it to life, when we cease to exist at the end of it? How can you believe that there is nothingness? how do you get something from nothing? Agnostic I understand, but Atheist makes no sense to me. (no offense intended)

There is a great speaker on youtube Dr. Ravi Zacharias, this is a very short youtube clip where an athiest asks him a question on determinism and freewill. science, atheism & freewill
Ravi is the guy with the white hair, just skip to when he speaks.

You asked for research, I’ve given you a route to find extensive research on the topic. As I said, different studies use different criteria, and the summary reports I linked to are giving references to other reports.

If all you were looking to do is cherry pick a few quotes and use them to rubbish dozens of published, peer reviewed research papers then I regret bothering to find links for you. I had assumed from our previous discussions that you were genuinely interested.

I was interested and I thank you for taking the time to provide me with those studies, I was just surprised at the studies, were you not surprised at what I found in the studies? that these studies were conducted before the end of puberty?

I would like to see a study done on those who are at the end of puberty and the study to look at their sexual morality, things like fornication, promiscuity and polygamous relations.

Hopefully they will say to themselves that discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is wrong.

Yup your correct, they will say to themselves that anything they sexually desire as long as their is consent is moral and that anyone who says otherwise is discriminating against their sexuality. They will use “discrimination” in such a way to justify their sexual immorality.

I don’t know, why don’t you ask those married couples who are out there right now cheating on their partners?

So therefore the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral because people are already commiting adultery and it is supposed to be immoral? is that you line of thinking?

Well it depends, if the parents are in a long term committed relationship then of course they can say “don’t have sex without being in a committed relationship” if they are married, they could say “don’t have sex until you’re married”.

If they’re out cheating on their partner all the time then they’d struggle to make a case for either. Of course all of the above applies for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples equally.

This is another case where the catholic position of “no sex before marriage” supports gay marriage. Because it enables homosexual parents to advise their children to remain chaste until marriage while not being hypocritical.

Okay.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

People on this thread keep using the word “deprive” which strongly implies a detriment. But thus far no evidence has been identified that a children raised with two parents of one gender suffers some detriment. Meanwhile, some evidence has been offered which shows they do not suffer a detriment.

It makes me sad to see you defending that I don’t think you understand what you are defending here.

The question wasn’t directed at homosexual parents, it was directed at IVF for homosexuals.

I’ll repeat it for you.

IVF is In Vitro Fertilisation.

Homosexuals cannot have children as they need an X and Y chromosome to procreate, IVF doesn’t change that, IVF when it comes to homosexuals requires a third party in order to provide the other chromosome for procreation, thus it is the use of a third party and IVF to bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father, not because it will benefit the child in any way, but because it’s what they selfishly want in their homosexual union.

It is absolutely without a doubt child abuse.

That quote doesn’t seem to have anything in it about gay marriage. Just divorce.

Mathew 19:4-6

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Again, hopefully they will realise that discrimination is wrong.

Yes, they will realise that sexual immorality is discrimination against sexuality, thus sexual immorality is no longer immoral.

Cheers

Likewise, Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

1. The basic reason given in support of gay marriage is the principle of equality.
2. Marriage is regarded as no more than a mutable human convention.
3. It is absurd to apply the principle of equality to a mutable human convention.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Support for gay marriage is based on the assumption that there are no fundamental differences between persons.
2. Support for gay marriage is also based on the assumption that marriage is significant.
3. If there are no fundamental differences between persons there is no reason why we should not be married to as many persons as we choose.
4. Marriage is insignificant if there is no reason why we should not be married to as many persons as we choose.

 

[CandideWest]

No, CW. If we’re going to make an analogy for chewing gum and sexual acts it would be analogous to kissing.

As I’ve already said, I’m not making an analogy, I am exploring a logical argument. So any analogies you wish to discuss are separate issues and unrelated to my argument.

 

[CandideWest]

No it was argued by me that homosexual sex is not ordered towards the procreation of new human life and therefore homosexual relationships cannot properly be considered marriages.

And as I said, that is a DIFFERENT argument. Please don’t conflate them, you’re just confusing yourself. Just to be clear, here are the two arguments.

Argument 1 - homosexuals cannot procreate.

Marriage is all about reproducing and raising children. Homosexuals cannot reproduce so shouldn’t be able to get married.

Main failings of this argument are:
a). Not everyone agrees marriage is all about reproduction and raising children, some people think it is also about social cohesion, love, vows etc. Marriage law as it exists today supports this as it doesn’t make and specific requirement or expectation on married couples having children.
b). If we all accepted that marriage is “really” all about reproduction and raising children then the existing position is inconsistent as infertile couples are permitted to marry.

Argument 2 - homosexual sex is “disordered”.

Set of logic starting from the idea that the evolutionary purpose of sex is reproduction and showing that since homosexual sex does not result in reproduction it is therefore “disordered and immoral”.

The main problem with this argument is that
a). The same logic shows that chewing gum is “disordered” and immoral and nobody seems to consider chewing gum to be something “disordered” or immoral.

See now? The logic I wrote out was about argument 2. You keep arguing that it doesn’t challenge argument 1. Which of course it doesn’t. Argument 1 fails for a different set of reasons.

As others have pointed out, chewing can serve multiple functions and therefore its relevancy in terms of eating is only incidental.

As of course can sex, but again, perhaps you haven’t got as far as reading the first line of the argument I presented? Premise 1? It specifically takes into account that actions may serve other purposes in addition to their primary one.

So unless you’re going to argue that the primary evolutionary function of chewing for our species is in fact something else, then your objection fails.

**
It is interesting that you think you can dismiss arguments by simply talking around them without really addressing the relevant points.**

Amusingly this is exactly what you have (presumably accidentally) done above. Fingers crossed you’re now clear on the two distinct arguments so won’t make this mistake again.

 

[CandideWest]

Definition of fornication -

Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.

So the question “Could you please give me an example of what sexual acts with consent (fornication and/or promiscuity) you see as immoral?”

And as you requested I have given and example of a sexual act with consent that I consider immoral. In this case a variant of “fornication” - a married man cheating on his wife.

I’m not sure why you keep asking even though I answered?

I find it funny that you try to disprove the unnatural aspect of the sexual acts of homosexuality, yet you try to prove the unnatural act of polygamous sexual acts by saying we have evolved to “pair bonding.”

Firstly, I am not trying to prove of disprove anything here. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

Secondly, I should have qualified my previous statements with “as far as I know”. Because it is of course possible that polygamous relationships can be stable in the long term and emotionally satisfying. However, I personally have no evidence that this is the case and some rather weak anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Finally this isn’t about relationships being “natural or unnatural” it’s about whether or not these relationships result in happiness or suffering.

Using contraception is immoral and the reason why I said the married situation was better, was because it doesn’t add fornication on top of that.

It is not better in a homosexual relationship, because we are talking about an entirely different sexual act. The sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral regardless of circumstance.

But within marriage it doesn’t add fornication on top of that. So surely it is still morally better? The same argument seems to apply for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

In a). You have a sexual act you consider to be immoral AND fornication

In b). You only have a sexual act you consider to be immoral.

Surely in b). You have one less “sin” whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual? If it is morally better for heterosexuals to not commit that sin as well then surely the same goes for homosexuals?

You keep rejecting “design”

Indeed, because I know of no evidence for design.

Im glad you have a conscience.

And I’m glad you do too

May I ask, what value is it to life, when we cease to exist at the end of it?

Do you believe that something can only be valuable if it is eternal? A meal? A pet? A car? A house? An experience? A friendship? Your (mortal) life? Are these things all worthless? No, of course not. People value all kinda of things that are not eternal. I see no problem with this.

How can you believe that there is nothingness?

??? Why would I need to? What has this to do with the price of fish?

how do you get something from nothing?

??? Why would I need to? What has this to do with the price of fish?

Agnostic I understand, but Atheist makes no sense to me. (no offense intended)

Why not?

There is a great speaker on youtube Dr. Ravi Zacharias, this is a very short youtube clip where an athiest asks him a question on determinism and freewill. science, atheism & freewill
Ravi is the guy with the white hair, just skip to when he speaks.

I watched the video, it’s a bit odd because he tries to turn it around as if determinism is a problem for atheism, which his interlocutor correctly identifies it is not. In truth the version of the problem of free will presented is rather an weak version of it anyway. There are better ones.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the subject at hand though.

I was interested and I thank you for taking the time to provide me with those studies, I was just surprised at the studies, were you not surprised at what I found in the studies? that these studies were conducted before the end of puberty?

Different studies are on different age groups and explore different issues. Yes, some focus on prepubescent ages because that is a time of important psychosexual development.

Yup your correct, they will say to themselves that anything they sexually desire as long as their is consent is moral and that anyone who says otherwise is discriminating against their sexuality. They will use “discrimination” in such a way to justify their sexual immorality.

??? How on earth would it follow from “discrimination on the basis of sexuality is wrong” to “any sexual activity with consent is moral”.

If you believe there is an argument to be made there then by all means make it. I personally cannot see any route between the two.

So therefore the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral because people are already commiting adultery and it is supposed to be immoral? is that you line of thinking?

??? This conversation is getting stranger. You asked

“What sexual morality advice to parents give who are already acting sexually immoral?”

I don’t know the answer to that question, but suggested a route for you to find the answer - “ask those married couples who are out there right now cheating on their partners?”

There’s nothing related to the morality of homosexual sex in either your question, or my answer.

Okay.

Just for clarity, are you agreeing that the catholic “no sex outside of marriage” position supports gay marriage?