Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

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.

… 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.

I’m well aware of the question thanks. As I said the problem with the above is that word “deprive” it implies a DETRIMENT to the child. However to date the only evidence which has been offered on the subject shows NO detriment to the child from having two parents of the same gender. This using the term “deprive” is rather misleading.

Unless you can show some kind of detriment to the child you as as well to argue that two blond parents having a child are bringing a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their having a ginger haired parent, not because it will benefit the child in any way, but because it’s what they selfishly want.

It’s just silly.

It is absolutely without a doubt child abuse.

If you genuinely believe that then I’m afraid you have no idea what child abuse really is. I’d suggest you do more research before throwing the term around as you have above.

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

No, I fear you have misread that. It was “hopefully they will realise that discrimination is wrong.”

Likewise, Thank you for reading
Josh

Take care

 

[Muze]

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.

1. It doesn’t matter whether everyone agrees or not. It matters whether the state or institution that is the authority in the matter thinks it is.

The RCC does.

So does the US government, if you read the cite Loving v. Virginia makes of Skinner v. Oklahoma, “… Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race.”

Also note that **laws **most often do NOT state the reason for the law’s existence in the law. One has to research the debate and basis for the law in order to find the reason for its existence. Skinner is excellent evidence.

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.

Actually, since procreation requires a male and a female, this is false. It is a valid, even if imperfect standard. Granted that states could require a certificate of fertility before issuing a license, but that would be difficult in practice. First, couples thought to be infertile do actually procreate sometimes. So, the science of who is fertile and who is not isn’t exact. Second, men are able to procreate throughout their lives, provided there is no dysfunction. The oldest woman to give birth was 64, so it doesn’t appear that age is necessarily a limitation, either. At this point, the number of valid exceptions is so small, it isn’t worth the expense and hassle of employing it.

So, while your lofty idea sounds credible, when we look at it practically, it would be nearly impossible to implement. Thus, the male-female standard is both efficient, practical, and, even if imperfect, valid.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Question begging.

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

False choice.

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.

Except… you haven’t actually demonstrated that chewing gum is disordered…

 

[CandideWest]

1. It doesn’t matter whether everyone agrees or not. It matters whether the state or institution that is the authority in the matter thinks it is.

Thus far at least I know of nothing in law that expects or requires married couples to have or be able to have children.

Actually, since procreation requires a male and a female, this is false. It is a valid, even if imperfect standard. Granted that states could require a certificate of fertility before issuing a license, but that would be difficult in practice.

If the law does not make any attempt to discern if a couple can have children before permitting them to marry then there appears not to be any requirement that the couple are able to have children in order to marry.

If there is no such requirement then homosexuals cannot be considered ineligible for marriage by failing to meet it.

 

[CandideWest]

Question begging.

??? Begging what question?

The logic I wrote out in my original post on this topic showed both homosexual sex and chewing gum to be “disordered” and immoral, using the same logic. Your counter arguments did not affect that in the slightest.

False choice.

Not unless some error in the logic can be shown that affects one but not the other.

Except… you haven’t actually demonstrated that chewing gum is disordered…

??? I have applied the same logic to chewing gum and homosexual sex both. The logic in both cases reaches the conclusion of being “disordered”. So, yes, I have demonstrated it. At least to the extent that the argument about homosexual sex being disordered works.

 

[stewstew03]

…

??? I have applied the same logic to chewing gum and homosexual sex both. The logic in both cases reaches the conclusion of being “disordered”. So, yes, I have demonstrated it. At least to the extent that the argument about homosexual sex being disordered works.

No, I already pointed out that your argument fails miserably to demonstrate that chewing gum is disordered because bubble gum is a consumable product.

Let’s take Juicy Fruit, which has 10 calories per stick – more than a cup of shredded lettuce (8 calories). Juicy Fruit contains sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc. Once you begin chewing a stick of Juicy Fruit, your teeth start breaking down the stick of gum – it goes from a whole stick, to many tiny pieces (that eventually end up “gummy” because your saliva binds all the little pieces of gum together). But, aside from the mechanical process, your taste buds detect the substances in the gum — such as carbohydrates, protein, fat — so that the right enzymes are produced and secreted throughout your digestive system (via saliva and stomach acids). Therefore, the act of chewing gum is “ordered towards” breaking down sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc., so that the body may digest them.

So, the exact same process that your body goes through when you chew a cup of lettuce, also occurs when you chew a piece of gum. For your “chewing-gum-is-disordered” argument to prevail, you will have to show that chewing gum does not involve any digestion of sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc.

http://www.umgnashville.com/images/local/400/a12f1d36-fd9a-412d-93dd-6718c4274302.jpg

 

[stewstew03]

No, I already pointed out that your argument fails miserably to demonstrate that chewing gum is disordered because bubble gum is a consumable product.

Let’s take Juicy Fruit, which has 10 calories per stick – more than a cup of shredded lettuce (8 calories). Juicy Fruit contains sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc. Once you begin chewing a stick of Juicy Fruit, your teeth start breaking down the stick of gum – it goes from a whole stick, to many tiny pieces (that eventually end up “gummy” because your saliva binds all the little pieces of gum together). But, aside from the mechanical process, your taste buds detect the substances in the gum — such as carbohydrates, protein, fat — so that the right enzymes are produced and secreted throughout your digestive system (via saliva and stomach acids). Therefore, the act of chewing gum is “ordered towards” breaking down sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc., so that the body may digest them.

So, the exact same process that your body goes through when you chew a cup of lettuce, also occurs when you chew a piece of gum. For your “chewing-gum-is-disordered” argument to prevail, you will have to show that chewing gum does not involve any digestion of sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc.

http://www.umgnashville.com/images/local/400/a12f1d36-fd9a-412d-93dd-6718c4274302.jpg

CandideWest, this might help as well:

From “How Stuff Works” dot com:

[The urban legend that gum stays in your system for seven years is false] due to the effectiveness of your digestive system. When you swallow food, it travels down your esophagus into your stomach. Here enzymes and acids go to work on the food, beginning the process of breaking the food down.

From the stomach, the partially digested food is moved into the intestine, where – with help from your liver and pancreas – the food is broken down into its components. These components are used to fuel the body. Those elements of food that can’t be used are sent to the colon, where they’ll be processed into waste.

Generally, gum is made up of four general components, and our bodies can easily break down three of these. The gum’s flavorings, sweeteners and softeners are all no match for human digestion. It’s the gum base that sticks around. Gum base is made mostly of synthetic chemicals, and these chemicals give gum its chewy property. It’s designed to resist the digestive properties of the saliva in your mouth. But once it’s swallowed, even the gum base is subjected to the same treatment as regular food, and after it’s recognized as useless by your digestive system, it goes the same route as any waste product.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

What about this?

Worldwide, an estimated 5–10% of HIV infections are the result of men having sex with men.[24] However in many developed countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Western Europe,** more HIV infections are transmitted by men having sex with men than by any other transmission route**.[23] In the United States, “men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time)** 60 times higher than the general population**”.[25]
In 2007, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among adults and adolescents in the U.S. were men who have sex with men (MSM). HIV infection is increasing at a rate of 12% annually among 13–24-year-old American men who have sex with men…

HBV can also be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of non-intact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing the virus…

MSM have an increased incidence and prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) including Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus and syphilis.[42] This follows an increase in Sexually transmitted diseases (STD) among men who have sex with men in the U.S.[43]

Syphilis (caused by infection with Treponema pallidum) is passed from person to person through direct contact with a syphilis sore; these occur mainly on the external genitals, or in the vagina, anus, or rectum.[44]** Sores also can occur on the lips and in the mouth.[44]** Transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex.[44]** In 2006, 64% of the reported cases in the United States were among men who have sex with men.[44]** This is consistent with a rise in the incidence of Syphilis among MSM in other developed nations, attributed by Australian and UK authors to increased rates of unprotected sex among MSM.[45][46]
.

• wikipedia

Are you quite sure there is no evidence that children are exposed to a greater risk of infection from practising homosexuals who share their accommodation and come into close physical contact with them?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Fair enough.

The answer then would be put in analogous terms. Chewing is not disordered because kissing is not disordered.

 

[PRmerger]

For your “chewing-gum-is-disordered” argument to prevail, you will have to show that chewing gum does not involve any digestion of sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc.

Yeah.

What stew said.

 

[josh987654321]

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?

Adultery isn’t a varient of fornication.

Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between persons **not married **to one another.

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.

So why again are polygamous sexual relations immoral and the sexual acts of homosexuality moral?

Because I agreed with your last post on that, we are a pair bonding species and we are also a male and female species, male and female go together sexually because they have the right parts for such sexual compatibility and complementarity.

If male and female are irrelevant in such acts being moral or immoral, than it should follow that number is also irrelevant and like you have been arguing that the sexual act in itself is apparently irrelevant because there is no such thing as “intended” or “designed” use when it comes to sexuality according to you. Really your reasoning opens the door to gravely sexually immoral acts if you think it’s like using your foot to accelerate a car.

Really your analogy says that nothing is sexually immoral as long as there is consent. So Im asking do you really think thats true when it comes to sexuality?

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?

The same doesn’t go for homosexuals, because such acts are gravely immoral.

In 1)
b) we have a sexual act that is NOT immoral in marriage between a man and a woman, just the use of contraception is immoral.

In 2)
b) we have a sexual act that is gravely immoral, whether in marriage or not, such acts are gravely immoral.

Indeed, because I know of no evidence for design.

How about the chances of the human enzyme coming together by random is 1 in 10^40000 and how about the chances of the universe being life permitting is 1 in 10^400

I mean being atheist to me is like saying that the dictionary came about by an explosion in a printing press.

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.

Me neither, what about meaning? I mean if we end in nothingness, what do you strive for in life?

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

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

Well if your reasoning for atheism is the price of fish, than I guess it doesn’t.

Why not?

Because atheism says that God does not exist, esentially they say that the dictionary came about by an explosion in a printing press, without realising that the probability of the dictionary coming together by random (through an explosion of ink and paper) is just so vastly improbable.

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 a weak version of it anyway. There are better ones.

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

It’s not, I just thought you might be interested.

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.

If you were to judge a piece of art, would you judge it at the beginning stages or when it was finnished?

??? 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.

Because of the way you use discrimination.

If it is sexual discrimination to say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are gravely immoral, than really it is sexual discrimination to say that any sexual act with consent is immoral.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

??? 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, the answer is that someone who commits adultery doesn’t have much sexual morality advice to give to their kids either. But it’s different because none are advocating adultery as moral. People are advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral.

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

When we say “no sex outside of marriage” we are talking about the sexual act between male and female targeted towards procreation, any other sexual act is immoral whether it’s in a marriage or not.

So no, thats not supporting gay marriage, because such sexual acts between same sex are immoral regardless of whether it’s called a marriage or not.

I’m well aware of the question thanks. As I said the problem with the above is that word “deprive” it implies a DETRIMENT to the child. However to date the only evidence which has been offered on the subject shows NO detriment to the child from having two parents of the same gender. This using the term “deprive” is rather misleading.

Unless you can show some kind of detriment to the child you as well to argue that two blond parents having a child are bringing a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their having a ginger haired parent, not because it will benefit the child in any way, but because it’s what they selfishly want.

It’s just silly.

:dts: I am talking about “biological” parents here.

It is absolutely child abuse, it is absolutely “deprive” it is absolutely a “detriment” to remove biological parents from a childs life when it is no way beneficial for the child.

When an adopted child grows up, they always end up looking for their biological parents, why do you think that is?

They are using a third party to procreate and than they are removing that childs biological mother or father, not to benefit the child in any way, so it’s done to selfishly benefit themselves.

The convenience of adults is selfishly being put above the wellfare of the children.

If you genuinely believe that then I’m afraid you have no idea what child abuse really is. I’d suggest you do more research before throwing the term around as you have above.

So you think there is nothing wrong with bringing a child into this world and depriving that child of their biological mother or father, not to benefit the child in any way, but to selfishly benefit themselves because they want a half biological child in their homosexual family?

No, I fear you have misread that. It was “hopefully they will realise that discrimination is wrong.”

Would saying that the sexual acts of homosexuality are gravely immoral be discrimination against sexuality? that the gay lifestyle is gravely immoral?

Take care

Likewise

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[1AugustSon7]

Well I have learned a lot about chewing gum today.

I learned that gay men practicing homosexuality have a 60 times higher chance of getting HIV . . . 60 times.

Also learned that there are people who are willing to pretend as if anatomy 101 isn’t obvious. For some people, the truth in “it’s not a toy” or “it doesn’t go there, dear” is taking the physical and just getting all metaphysical with it.

Some people think it’s groundless to assert that body parts have proper functions; that is, the body cannot be said with certainty to serve any definite or determinable purpose. There is no point, however, in arguing with someone who doesn’t believe their brain serves any function.

Chewing gum… and 60 times. And people who put a lot of thought and effort into proving that their brains don’t serve any purpose. Just wow.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

These aren’t failings with the argument. If they were, then…

a) The fact that not everyone agrees that theft is wrong and some engage in break and entry is not a reason for claiming that, therefore, laws concerning theft should be revised. Just because not everyone agrees means nothing in terms of actual morality. You will have to present a more compelling “failing” than this one to claim that Argument 1 fails.

b) You keep ignoring the fact that infertile couples are doing everything “right” but do not have children because of nothing that is in their control. They have ordered their actions towards having children - they are playing the game by the rules, so to speak - but just don’t win at the game. Same sex couples are not playing by the rules of “generating new life” and are demanding that the game change to meet their own mode of playing. That is an important distinction whether you want to admit it or not.

The analogy I gave is that infertile couples are going through the entire process of “eating” but the food they are digesting contains no nutrients. That is a problem with the food, not with them. Same sex couples are not carrying out the process of eating, they are merely rubbing the food on their bodies and have no desire to engage in eating, just in some other activity they want everyone else to call “eating” when it simply isn’t. This is a radical difference between the two cases.

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.

What you have failed to show is that there is no difference between a disorder that is morally relevant and one that is not.

If the end towards which certains actions are ordered is morally important, then it could well be that “disorder” in such cases is morally relevant and immoral, whereas there might be ends which are not morally important and therefore disordered actions in these cases could be morally neutral.

If the end is merely a practical or pragmatic one, the activities or means to that kind of end could be morally neutral and we would have no compelling reason to morally condemn such a disorder. On the other hand, if the end is a morally important or crucial one, then there could well be reasons to claim this kind of disorder to be worthy of moral condemnation.

Your rebuttal fails to recognize different kinds of disorder so you are begging the question by assuming that finding a morally innocuous disorder means that all disorders are, likewise, morally neutral. For your argument to stand you would have to prove the following two premises:

1. All disorders are morally equal, so finding one example (chewing gum) of a morally innocuous disorder requires all disorders to be treated the same. Clearly this is false because not all ends are morally important so disorders concerning morally important ends could well be immoral because they fail to bring about morally critical ends.
2. A disordered sexual orientation is morally neutral because there is no morally important end towards which heterosexual marriage is aimed. You have assumed sexual orientation is morally neutral, you haven’t demonstrated that.

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.

Neither argument fails without assuming that same sex behaviour is morally licit. The only reason you gave for claiming that it is, is that some people approve of it. However, some people approve of theft and others of rape, but that some approve of a behaviour does not make it morally acceptable.

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.

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.

Your attempt at divide and conquer has not been successful except to those, like you, who simply think same sex behaviour is morally licit but can provide not reason other than it has support among a proportion of human beings. Hitler, likewise had support among a large number of citizens from Germany and other countries. In itself, that does not make his actions morally commendable.

 

[tonyrey]

What is/are the precise purpose/s of marriage? To show everyone is equal?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What is/are the precise purpose/s of marriage? To show everyone is equal?

I mistook this for the other thread when I first saw this. But I think my response there is equally applicable here. So here it is:

To show ever one is equal? No. In some communities the female is still seeing subservient and less than a man. I can recall this message being shared the last time I was within a church. The justification for it went something along these lines:

God made man so man must be subservient to God. Woman was made from man so woman must be subservient to man. Woman was the cause of the fall from Eden so man must always be the leader because when woman lead man it caused problems.

While this view isn’t universal to the different sects of Christianity it does still exists today.

But getting back to your first question on the precise purpose of marriage that’s a hard one. Different people have different motivations/justifications/purpose for marriage. Some that I’ve come across include a license to have sex, an expression of love to some one, to attain social status, to attain some form of security, a rite of passage, tradition/custom, securing a business arrangement (in the case of arranged marriage) and many others. When it comes to purpose marriage is quite multifarious.

 

[CandideWest]

No, I already pointed out that your argument fails miserably to demonstrate that chewing gum is disordered because bubble gum is a consumable product.
…
So, the exact same process that your body goes through when you chew a cup of lettuce, also occurs when you chew a piece of gum. For your “chewing-gum-is-disordered” argument to prevail, you will have to show that chewing gum does not involve any digestion of sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc.

Ahhh, so your argument is now the purpose of chewing gum is in fact to give you nutrition, even though you previously said that “The purpose of chewing is not to soften the gum, but to derive some sort of pleasure in its taste, or to freshen your breath, etc.”

It would also mean that if you kept chewing gum after you have removed all the digestible nutrients or for example chewed gum base (chicle) on its own (some people do, you can buy it and make your own), neither of which have any nutritional value then that would be “disordered”.

I think this only helps to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation. Chewing gum is fine as long as you are doing it for the purpose of extracting nutrients (which virtually nobody does in reality) and even then it becomes disordered if what you are chewing is no longer able to give you any nutrients.

 

[CandideWest]

Fair enough.
The answer then would be put in analogous terms. Chewing is not disordered because kissing is not disordered.

Your analogy does not answer my argument and you have made no attempt to show that your analogy is in any way analogous.

No case for me to answer.

 

[CandideWest]

Adultery isn’t a varient of fornication.

Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between persons **not married **to one another.

Ok, lets do this slowly. A man (M) is married to a woman (W).

Man (M) has sex with another woman (w’).

He is not married to woman (w’).

Therefore he is having sex with a woman he is not married to.

The definition you have given for fornication is “voluntary sexual intercourse between persons **not married **to one another”

Therefore he is committing fornication. By. Your. Definition.

So why again are polygamous sexual relations immoral

I don’t know that they are necessarily.

and the sexual acts of homosexuality moral?

Unless we have some reason to consider them immoral then why would we consider them immoral?

Because I agreed with your last post on that, we are a pair bonding species and we are also a male and female species, male and female go together sexually because they have the right parts for such sexual compatibility and complementarity.

Again, reproductive compatibility. You keep getting those two mixed up, and again we have already covered that one.

If male and female are irrelevant in such acts being moral or immoral, than it should follow that number is also irrelevant and like you have been arguing that the sexual act in itself is apparently irrelevant

What is relevant to morality is whether or not there is some kind of suffering or harm caused. Thus far nothing of the sort has been identified. Now, as I have already said, it is possible that research on polygamous relationships will likewise reveal that they are generally happy and emotionally fulfilling for all parties. If so then I will agree there is nothing immoral in it.

because there is no such thing as “intended” or “designed” use when it comes to sexuality according to you.

If you want to use “design” as an argument then you’re going to need to show evidence of design. Thus far you have not.

Really your analogy says that nothing is sexually immoral as long as there is consent.

??? What analogy? Also please note that I have specifically argued against the idea you keep putting forwards that nothing is sexually immoral as long as there is consent.

The same doesn’t go for homosexuals, because such acts are gravely immoral.

In 1)
b) we have a sexual act that is NOT immoral in marriage between a man and a woman, just the use of contraception is immoral.

In 2)
b) we have a sexual act that is gravely immoral, whether in marriage or not, such acts are gravely immoral.

So you are sayin that homosexual sex acts are such that they automatically stop fornication from being a sin?

Again, the argument here is not whether the sex act is moral in itself. I’m quite confident that your mind will never budge from that position. What I’m asking you is effectively whether it is morally worse to have one “sin” or the same “sin” and another “sin” as well.

Thus far you argument seems to be that in one case it is better to have only one “sin” and in the other case it doesn’t matter how many “sins” you commit. This is, to say the least, a little inconsistent.

How about the chances of the human enzyme coming together by random is 1 in 10^40000 and how about the chances of the universe being life permitting is 1 in 10^400

Why on earth do you keep talking about things coming together “by random” you seem to be determined to attach a position nobody holds. Again, enzymes (like the rest of us) evolved. We didn’t just come together by chance.

I mean being atheist to me is like saying that the dictionary came about by an explosion in a printing press.

??? Again, no idea what you’re talking about I’m afraid.

Me neither, what about meaning? I mean if we end in nothingness, what do you strive for in life?

All kinds of different things.

Well if your reasoning for atheism is the price of fish, than I guess it doesn’t.

Ahhh, sorry “what’s that got to do with the price of fish” is an expression where I come from. You say it when someone says something which is totally unrelated to the subject at hand. So for example when in a conversation about gay marriage someone comes out and says “how do you get something from nothing” you might say “what’s that got to do with the price of fish” as an alternative for “what’s that got to do with the subject at hand?”

See?

Because atheism says that God does not exist, esentially they say that the dictionary came about by an explosion in a printing press, without realising that the probability of the dictionary coming together by random (through an explosion of ink and paper) is just so vastly improbable.

Again, nobody thinks people came about by chance, we evolved. The probability problem is an issue for theists, not atheists. We already have a well established mechanism by which complex organised systems come into existence (evolution).

If you were to judge a piece of art, would you judge it at the beginning stages or when it was finnished?

You are trying to make an analogy between a piece of art and the psychosexual development of a child. The two are simply not analogous.

It is no use asking people questions about changes in their life after that change has happened, because they will tell you about their perceptions from the place they finished, not their perceptions on the journey which is what you need to know about.

 

[CandideWest]

Because of the way you use discrimination.

If it is sexual discrimination to say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are gravely immoral, than really it is sexual discrimination to say that any sexual act with consent is immoral.

Firstly what way I “use discrimination”.

Secondly you have not shown any logical argument here, you have again taken two unrelated points and put the word “then” in between them. That is not an argument. There is no case for me to answer.

Okay, the answer is that someone who commits adultery doesn’t have much sexual morality advice to give to their kids either. But it’s different because none are advocating adultery as moral.

Right, so if you want to learn about what sexually immoral parents teach their children about sexual morality. Your best bet is to find a married couple where one or both of the partners cheat and ask them.

People are advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral.

Indeed, because as far as we can determine there is nothing immoral there.

When we say “no sex outside of marriage” we are talking about the sexual act between male and female targeted towards procreation, any other sexual act is immoral whether it’s in a marriage or not.

So no, thats not supporting gay marriage, because such sexual acts between same sex are immoral regardless of whether it’s called a marriage or not.

But as per the question I’ve written above, at least doing it while married avoids that extra “sin” – fornication.

It is absolutely child abuse,

Again, you clearly have no idea what that term really means, I would suggest you cease using it and seek a more appropriate term.

it is absolutely “deprive” it is absolutely a “detriment” to remove biological parents from a childs life when it is no way beneficial for the child.

Then by all means demonstrate that there is this detriment. Thus far some research has been posted on this thread on the topic and that found no detriment. If you want to use this argument then you’ll need to post some of your own showing your conclusion.

Would saying that the sexual acts of homosexuality are gravely immoral be discrimination against sexuality? that the gay lifestyle is gravely immoral?

Depends where and how you say it I guess. Most people will probably just laugh such things off. Which is probably the best response, some people will be hurt though.

Likewise

Thank you for reading
Josh