Secular argument against gay marriage

[CandideWest]

How 'bout you answer this question posed earlier?
I meant is your paradigm for what’s a moral sexual liaison: consenting adults who aren’t married to other people?

I don’t have a “paradigm” for moral sexual liaisons as far as I know. I’m not clear on what you are asking here. But for sex to be moral it certainly should be between consenting adults who aren’t married to other people. That would be a good starter.

 

[CandideWest]

Again, it is very interesting how you go about dismissing arguments without actually addressing them.

Haha, most amusing that again you make an accusation against me of dismissing your arguments without addressing them in order to dismiss all my arguments without addressing them (and despite the fact that I did address all your arguments in my previous post).

Again, I’m curious what you hope to achieve with such schoolyard tactics?

Only free rational beings are capable of acting morally. We do not condemn animal behaviour as immoral because, as far as we know, animals are incapable of making free and rational decisions and acting on them.

Interestingly some animals do in fact have their own systems of morality. They are very dissimilar to ours of course, but nonetheless clearly moral systems.

The only way to bring new human beings (humans are the only biological species capable of acting morally, as far as we know) into existence is through the sexual union of a heterosexual pair of human beings.

That used to be true, but obviously no longer. We learned a few decades ago how to bring new humans into being without sex (in vitro fertilisation for example).

The coming into existence and subsequent moral development of human beings is of prime moral importance because it is the only means by which new and morally valuable human beings can come into existence.

I agree that it is important to our species that we continue to have children, yes. I think that’s what you were going for here.

If the existence of moral human beings is important - and it is - given that all human morality hangs on the existence of human moral beings, then the sole means by which human moral beings can come into existence (heterosexual union) ought to be treated in accord with its unique status as the only means by which moral human beings can come into existence. If morality is valued for its own sake, then the sole means by which the creation and development of human moral beings can occur should likewise be accorded unique status. That status has, traditionally, been recognized as belonging to the institution of marriage, which properly understood is intended as the means by which new moral human beings are brought into being and raised to become individuals capable of rational moral decision-making and action. Safeguarding the only means by which new human beings come into existence would seem to be a principle moral imperative and any action or decision that entails results contrary to this end would necessarily have moral implications.

Ok, your argument here seems to amount to:

1. Having children is important
2. In the recent history of our species most children are born in some sort of married relationship.
3. Therefore marriage is important.

Which is pretty much fine in itself. Obviously 3. doesn’t actually logically follow, but nonetheless, I’m not going to dispute that marriage is an important institution. Obviously there are other reasons that marriage is important as well, but nonetheless it does more or less hold. But then you rather go off the rails somewhat by claiming that marriage is the “means by which new moral human beings are brought into being and raised” which amounts to an attempt to redefine marriage to be all about children again. Which of course takes you right back to the same problem you had previously with infertile people getting married, or people who choose not to have children etc.

Since marriage is the institution long recognized as the only means by which new moral human beings come into existence, then any attempt to compromise its role towards its properly ordered end would be immoral, in principle.

Here you’ve gone right off the rails in trying to argue that marriage is in some way the “only” means to create new people. Which clearly it is not. I the principle of marriage has only been around for a few percent of the history of our species and even during that time many people have been raised perfectly fine without their parents being married.

Then you have tried to take advantage of this wildly off the rails position by claiming that any attempt to compromise the role you have personally ascribed to marriage (it’s worth noting that the existing law in fact does “compromise” this supposed role) would be immoral. Clearly this is to say the least somewhat silly.

To be clear, this is not to argue that same sex unions are necessarily immoral, though they might be, it does argue that compromising the purpose of marriage by redefining it or acting within a state of marriage contrary to its proper end (creation of new morally competent human beings), is immoral.

Alas your argument fails completely here because you are in fact trying to redefine marriage to be something that it is not and to the best of my knowledge has never been.

 

[CandideWest]

To be even more clear, this does not mean couples have a responsibility to produce as many offspring as possible. It does mean that couples have a duty to do all in their power and to the limits of their power to create and raise morally responsible offspring. That would mean the couple would need to refrain from teaching, aiding or abetting immoral intentions and behaviour and be compelled to refrain from such behaviour themselves. Such actions would be immoral precisely because they are fostering immoral behaviour among their offspring.

This appears to be an attempt to get your argument out of the noose you have put it in by redefining marriage to be about having children. Obviously it fails because it doesn’t go far enough, the only way it would work is to completely reverse your previous line of argument that marriage is in fact NOT all about having children. But then of course you would have no argument at all.

Since marriage has unique status - the only means by which new human and therefore morally important beings are created and formed into moral beings…

And again, therein is the failure of your argument.

Notice that infertile couples are not acting contrary to the ordered goal of marriage because there is no attempt to alter its status as a moral institution aimed at producing new moral beings…

Correct, in your logic infertile couples would not be acting contrary to the “goal of marriage” as long as they don’t get married. Of course if they did get married then they would be compromising it’s principle role…

Oh drat, but they CAN and DO get married. So again, you argument has failed completely.

It seems odd to me that you keep trying to redefine marriage to be all about reproduction but won’t actually stick to your guns. Come on, have the courage of your convictions. If marriage is about having children then we should redefine it accordingly and stop people who can’t have children from getting married, whether they are homosexual, infertile, celibate etc etc. Arguing that we should redefine marriage to be all about reproduction for some people but not others is just kinda silly.

 

[CandideWest]

:banghead: My deepest apologies, you are right.

No worries

So adultery would have consent for all parties including his wife.

Would it still be immoral?

I think I would still argue it would be, because he would be breaking the vows made at the time he was married. That his wife doesn’t mind does not change that fact.

Okay, so you wouldn’t have a problem with the law also including polygamous marriage?

If it was shown by reasonably solid evidence that polygamous relationships are happy and generally emotionally satisfying for all then I certainly wouldn’t have any problem with polygamous relationships being considered moral. However, I suspect that in practice the legal difficulties created by changing marriage to cover more than two people would be difficult. For example in the cases where one spouse currently has legal authority what would happen when there were two? What if they disagree? Etc.

Okay, so any sexual act with **consent for all parties **involved, would be morally right?

As I said before, necessary but not sufficient. It’s not practical to say that if x and y then ALL else is moral, because morality is affected so much by individual circumstances. I’m sure that we can both invent circumstances where there is consent from all parties involved and we would still both agree that the act was immoral. Then you could adjust the statement to cover that situation and we could still find a situation where we would both agree it was immoral… etc.

Yes we have already covered it, you don’t have to reply to this one.

OK

Well, if there is no design, than it should really be moral to use our sexual organs for just about anything we like as long as there is consent for all parties involved right?

I don’t see how that follows, perhaps you could write out your argument?

The 1st scenario Im saying that the sexual act is moral, however it is immoral outside of marriage.

So you are saying that sex using contraception is moral as long as the couple doing so are married?

The 2nd scenario Im saying that the sexual act is immoral and thus whether inside a marriage or outside a marriage, it doesn’t make any difference to that sexual act being morally better or worse, it’s still immoral

Surely it’s still one “sin” less isn’t it? Unless fornication not a “sin” if you’re homosexual?

Exactly, yet if there is no God, it’s saying that we did come together by chance

No, not at all. Yet again, we evolved, we did NOT come together by chance.

Okay, can we drop this bit in our debate? (if you don’t mind).

Sure, no worries.

Anyway don’t worry about these arguments, I was just putting ideas out there for you, incase you had never thought of them.

No worries, I’ve heard them all before.

It still doesn’t explain the first life form to evolve from

You’re right there, it doesn’t. That’s a different field of work – abiogenesis. Evolution explains everything from the first self replicating thing (which was probably a nothing we would consider “life” by our standards but more like a chemical reaction) all the way up to the wonderful diversity of life around the world at present. But it doesn’t explain that first simple self replicating chemical. That is an active and interesting area of research. If you’re interested an accessible starting point is wiki.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

and if we did evolve from animals, wouldn’t there be humans who are half animal or animals who are half human or something more inbetween, why would the gap be as far as it is to distinguish between two species?

Firstly humans ARE animals, we are not something separate from animals, we are one particular species of animal.

In terms of why species of animal are different from each other, well we’re banned from discussing evolution. But the part of evolution you are asking about here is Speciation. There’s quite a good article on wiki for a brief outline of the topic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

But wouldn’t you also need to establish where they finnished? Perceptions along the journey are meaningless unless you know where they finnished with those perceptions.

It depends what exactly you are looking into with a given study. Also it’s worth noting that after age 15 (arguably even at that age) the parents are no longer the biggest factor influencing a persons development. As they grow older their peers become a more significant influence psychological influence. So if you are seeking to get a statistically significant result regarding the influence of parenting you need to cut off accordingly.

There is a difference though, they will say that adultery is immoral, the homosexual parents will say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral.

Sure, and most heterosexual parents these days teach their children likewise luckily.

What would you call it?

What? Adults raising a child? I call it parenting.

So your telling me that the removal of biological parents which does not benefit a child in any way is not a detriment?

No, I don’t know of any detriment to a child being raised by parents who are not both his or her biological parents. From the above I assume you’re against anyone using IVF then?

So if I said that the gay lifestyle was immoral because the sexual acts of homosexuality are gravely immoral, would that be labelled as discrimination against sexuality?

As I said, I suspect it depends where and how you said it. To me the above just comes across as ill educated as opposed to “discrimination” as such.

All the best.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have a “paradigm” for moral sexual liaisons as far as I know. I’m not clear on what you are asking here. But for sex to be moral it certainly should be between consenting adults who aren’t married to other people. That would be a good starter.

Fair enough.

What about living together? Do you consider that to be a committed relationship?

If so, then does that mean that you also would add: for sex to be moral it certainly should be between consenting adults who aren’t married to other people or living together in a committed relationship? Yes?

 

[josh987654321]

I think I would still argue it would be, because he would be breaking the vows made at the time he was married. That his wife doesn’t mind does not change that fact.

I agree.

What about promiscuity and or fornication between persons who are not married to anyone?

If it was shown by reasonably solid evidence that polygamous relationships are happy and generally emotionally satisfying for all then I certainly wouldn’t have any problem with polygamous relationships being considered moral. However, I suspect that in practice the legal difficulties created by changing marriage to cover more than two people would be difficult. For example in the cases where one spouse currently has legal authority what would happen when there were two? What if they disagree? Etc.

In the middle east, polygamy is standard practice, so they have figured it out easily in their laws.

So therefore the argument that if gender no longer matters in marriage than number shouldn’t matter either, would be absolutely correct.

As I said before, necessary but not sufficient. It’s not practical to say that if x and y then ALL else is moral, because morality is affected so much by individual circumstances. I’m sure that we can both invent circumstances where there is consent from all parties involved and we would still both agree that the act was immoral. Then you could adjust the statement to cover that situation and we could still find a situation where we would both agree it was immoral… etc.

Note: We are following this path in the first repsone so i’ll try a new tact here

So why is the sexual acts of homosexuality moral according to you? when you make the decision on whether the act is moral/immoral do take into account sexual orientation?

I don’t see how that follows, perhaps you could write out your argument?

Sure.

You say that there is no deign for sexuality. Now if there is no design for sexuality, than it should follow that any sexual act that has consent for all parties involved should be moral according to you. Is that really what you think?

Remember when answering this, I am talking about sexual acts, I am not talking about the breaking of a marriage vow that would be cause for immorality or the lack of sufficent consent that would be a cause for immorality, it is just the sexual act (to remove all of the other variables).

So you are saying that sex using contraception is moral as long as the couple doing so are married?

No. I thought it was without contraception. I forgot. My apologies

With contraception, it is immoral, but it is still the appropriate sexual act.

Surely it’s still one “sin” less isn’t it? Unless fornication not a “sin” if you’re homosexual?

No because the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral all accross the board.

In your scenario with the heterosexual couple using contraception, it is immoral because of the use of contraception in their marriage, the sexual act in itself is moral though.

Likewise with the heterosexual couple, the sexual act outside of marriage is also immoral, but given the correct circumstances such an act is moral.

In your scenario with the homosexual couple, the act in itself is immoral, thus there is nothing they can do or change in order to make it moral, the sexual act is immoral regardless of circumstance.

No, not at all. Yet again, we evolved, we did NOT come together by chance.

But like I said, we evolved from what? there is nothing physical that can explain a first cause, in a finite world, you cannot have an infinite number of first causes.

Has anybody come up with a scientific conclusion to discredit the existance of God as the first cause? not even close.

Has anybody come up with a scientific conclusion to explain the first cause? not even close. The only explanation is a first cause which is timeless, eternal, infinite. this is God.

Science and the existance of God go together.

If you have time, please check out these.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

20 Arguments for Gods existance. Dr Peter Kreeft.

strangenotions.com/god-exists/

Five Arguments for God. William Lane Craig.

thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

You’re right there, it doesn’t. That’s a different field of work – abiogenesis. Evolution explains everything from the first self replicating thing (which was probably a nothing we would consider “life” by our standards but more like a chemical reaction) all the way up to the wonderful diversity of life around the world at present. But it doesn’t explain that first simple self replicating chemical. That is an active and interesting area of research. If you’re interested an accessible starting point is wiki.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Thanks for the link, I’ll have a look and get back to ya on it.

Firstly humans ARE animals, we are not something separate from animals, we are one particular species of animal.

In terms of why species of animal are different from each other, well we’re banned from discussing evolution. But the part of evolution you are asking about here is Speciation. There’s quite a good article on wiki for a brief outline of the topic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Okay, I’ll look into this link aswell and get back to ya. Thank you.

It depends what exactly you are looking into with a given study. Also it’s worth noting that after age 15 (arguably even at that age) the parents are no longer the biggest factor influencing a persons development. As they grow older their peers become a more significant influence psychological influence. So if you are seeking to get a statistically significant result regarding the influence of parenting you need to cut off accordingly.

So you think parents don’t play a significant role over teenage years? your kidding right? parents are most needed over those years precisely because there are so many other influencing factors and the parents need to counter act those other influencing factors, not support them, so the parents play the biggest and most important role over the teenage years, any parent who “checks out” over the teenage years is a damn fool.

I can’t believe people would say that society raises them when they hit their teenage years, no wonder society is a mess.

Sure, and most heterosexual parents these days teach their children likewise luckily.

Yup. But what do they teach about the sexual acts of homosexuality? do they teach it as moral? and if they teach it as moral, wouldn’t that say that anything they sexually desire is moral as long as their is consent for all parties involved? (remember sexual act in itself, not taking into account other varibles).

What? Adults raising a child? I call it parenting.

No. Adults bringing a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father for no benefit for the child.

No, I don’t know of any detriment to a child being raised by parents who are not both his or her biological parents. From the above I assume you’re against anyone using IVF then?

I am against IVF, but homosexuals using a thrid party and IVF is the ultimate act of child abuse. It is bringing a child into the world to remove that childs identity, to remove their mother or father intentionaly for selfish reasons.

The only time removing a childs biological mother or father is not an act of child abuse is when it may benefit the child.

As I said, I suspect it depends where and how you said it. To me the above just comes across as ill educated as opposed to “discrimination” as such.

Could you try and educate me than please.

All the best.

Likewise

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[stewstew03]

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.

This is getting old…

You seem to be running away from your own arguments now that they’ve been thoroughly debunked. You stated that the purpose of chewing gum is to break down food in preparation for digestion, then tried to bait-and-switch and say - “Ah ha, there are no nutrients in gum, therefore it is disordered!”

You have failed to show that chewing Juicy Fruit does not break down sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc. You want to make this about nutrition through some sort of prestidigitation, as if no one is actually paying attention.

I will make it simple for you:

Prove that chewing Juicy Fruit does not help digest the ingredients within Juicy Fruit.

Keep in mind your premise: “The primary evolutionary purpose… of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.”

 

[CandideWest]

Fair enough.

What about living together? Do you consider that to be a committed relationship?

If so, then does that mean that you also would add: for sex to be moral it certainly should be between consenting adults who aren’t married to other people or living together in a committed relationship? Yes?

It depends on the circumstances.

 

[CandideWest]

I agree.

What about promiscuity and or fornication between persons who are not married to anyone?

Depends on the circumstances.

In the middle east, polygamy is standard practice, so they have figured it out easily in their laws.

Those countries where polygamous marriage is permitted have very different marriage laws to our countries. Those are the kinds of extensive changes I was talking about probably being untenable in practice.

So why is the sexual acts of homosexuality moral according to you? when you make the decision on whether the act is moral/immoral do take into account sexual orientation?

It’s moral if I can discover nothing immoral about it.

You say that there is no deign for sexuality. Now if there is no design for sexuality, than it should follow that any sexual act that has consent for all parties involved should be moral according to you. Is that really what you think?

??? You haven’t written a logical argument there, all you’ve done is written two apparently completely disconnected statements with the word “than” (I assume this should have been “then”) between them.

No. I thought it was without contraception. I forgot. My apologies

With contraception, it is immoral, but it is still the appropriate sexual act.

Right, so you are saying that heterosexual sex with contraception is immoral right?

No because the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral all accross the board.

??? Are you trying to argue that heterosexual sex with contraception is NOT immoral “across the board”?

In your scenario with the heterosexual couple using contraception, it is immoral because of the use of contraception in their marriage, the sexual act in itself is moral though.

??? But the sexual act is with contraception. So is it moral or immoral?

Likewise with the heterosexual couple, the sexual act outside of marriage is also immoral, but given the correct circumstances such an act is moral.

Er, ok, but you argued before that the act (heterosexual sex with contraception) was immoral and was morally worse if the couple was not married right?

In your scenario with the homosexual couple, the act in itself is immoral…

Just like heterosexual sex with contraception by your argument

…thus there is nothing they can do or change in order to make it moral, the sexual act is immoral regardless of circumstance.

Again, I’m not trying to get you recognise homosexual sex as moral, but by your own argument it ought to be morally BETTER if the couple are married. That’s all I’m trying to get you to recognise.

But like I said, we evolved from what?

From our evolutionary ancestors. Again, wiki has a nice simple outline of our evolutionary history.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

there is nothing physical that can explain a first cause, in a finite world, you cannot have an infinite number of first causes.

Ok, so lets for the moment assume we live in a finite universe with a first cause. How do we get from there to a deity? Many people have tried, most famously Aquinas with his “hey lets call it God”.

Has anybody come up with a scientific conclusion to discredit the existance of God as the first cause? not even close.

??? Of course not, has anyone come up with a scientific conclusion which discredits fairies, or elves, or “The Dream” or Timeless Quantum Foam, or Brahmin or … No of course not. You can’t get evidence for a negative.

Has anybody come up with a scientific conclusion to explain the first cause? not even close.

Nope, there are many hypotheses (including a number which state the universe was created by some form of god or goddess). Thus far there is no compelling evidence for any of them.

The only explanation is a first cause which is timeless, eternal, infinite. this is God.

Firstly why those criteria? Secondly, why can only a deity meet those criteria? Unless you can show those you’ve gotten nowhere I’m afraid.

Science and the existance of God go together.

Only if God actually exists. Thus far there has been a great deal of conflict between science and religion, for example over evolution.

If you have time, please check out these.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

Long since debunked I’m afraid.

20 Arguments for Gods existance. Dr Peter Kreeft.

strangenotions.com/god-exists/

There doesn’t seem to be any arguments for the existence of God here just a selection of stories, are you sure this is the right link?

Five Arguments for God. William Lane Craig.

thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf

Link doesn’t work for me.

Thanks for the link, I’ll have a look and get back to ya on it.

Okay, I’ll look into this link aswell and get back to ya. Thank you.

No worries.

So you think parents don’t play a significant role over teenage years? your kidding right? …

Sure, but you have to draw a line somewhere, when is a child no longer a child? Do you want to stop at 30? Well, no that’s just silly? 20? I think most 20 year olds would rather object to being called a child. 18? Well that’s official legal adulthood in most countries, there may be an argument there. 16? well that’s the line some of these studies you are referring to drew, old enough to leave school and get a job… There’s an argument there too.

 

[CandideWest]

Yup. But what do they teach about the sexual acts of homosexuality? do they teach it as moral?

Most parents I know get a bit shy about talking details of any sex with their kids. So I don’t suppose they talk details about different sex acts, no.

and if they teach it as moral, wouldn’t that say that anything they sexually desire is moral as long as their is consent for all parties involved? (remember sexual act in itself, not taking into account other varibles).

Again, no idea how the latter would follow, so no idea why they would teach their kids that.

No. Adults bringing a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father for no benefit for the child.

I still call it parenting, I’m not sure why I would distinguish between parenting by biological parents and parenting by surrogate / adoptive / IVF parents.

I am against IVF, but homosexuals using a thrid party and IVF is the ultimate act of child abuse.

No, it is really REALLY not. Your accusations here reveal nothing other than ignorance of what child abuse is. And to call it the “ultimate act of child abuse” beggars belief. Seriously, stop and think about this for a minute. If you really need to perhaps have a look around the Internet and learn about what child abuse really is.

It is bringing a child into the world to remove that childs identity, to remove their mother or father intentionaly for selfish reasons.

No, a persons identity is NOT defined by who their biological parents are.

The only time removing a childs biological mother or father is not an act of child abuse is when it may benefit the child.

Again, you need to find an appropriate term.

Could you try and educate me than please.

Not an endeavour that I wish to engage in I’m afraid. Firstly (quite rightly as you don’t know my credentials) you do not accord me any authority to teach you. Secondly Internet forums are an entirely inappropriate venue for education. Thirdly attempts to teach by post tend to come off as arrogant. And finally there are plenty of more appropriate places to learn on the Internet than from my writing. If you genuinely wish to learn then your best bet is self education. Just try to avoid sites which repeat your pre-existing views, otherwise you’ll suffer from confirmation bias and won’t learn anything.

Likewise

Thank you for reading
Josh

Ta Ta.

 

[CandideWest]

This is getting old…

You seem to be running away from your own arguments now that they’ve been thoroughly debunked. You stated that the purpose of chewing gum is to break down food in preparation for digestion, then tried to bait-and-switch and say - “Ah ha, there are no nutrients in gum, therefore it is disordered!”

You have failed to show that chewing Juicy Fruit does not break down sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, glycerol, soy lecithin, etc. You want to make this about nutrition through some sort of prestidigitation, as if no one is actually paying attention.

I will make it simple for you:

Prove that chewing Juicy Fruit does not help digest the ingredients within Juicy Fruit.

Keep in mind your premise: “The primary evolutionary purpose… of the act of chewing is breaking down food in preparation for digestion.”

Ok, it would really help if you’d read my post before writing your reply. To be clear, you produced an example of a chewing gum that you argued could legitimately could be chewed for its nutritional value (Juicy Fruit), and I produced two examples of acts of chewing gum which couldn’t.

Then pointed out that this just goes to highlight the absurdity of the position here in that chewing gum like “Juicy Fruit” is not disordered INITIALLY. But you’ve got to be careful because if you chew it too long then it becomes disordered. By this i mean after it has lost all its “nutritional value” (because it gets broken down and released in the act of chewing) the same act then becomes “disordered”.

Equally chewing some types of gum (ie gum base - chicle) that has no nutritional value, is “disordered” from the start.

Hopefully that’s clear enough for you?

 

[stewstew03]

Ok, it would really help if you’d read my post before writing your reply. To be clear, you produced an example of a chewing gum that you argued could legitimately could be chewed for its nutritional value (Juicy Fruit), and I produced two examples of acts of chewing gum which couldn’t.

Then pointed out that this just goes to highlight the absurdity of the position here in that chewing gum like “Juicy Fruit” is not disordered INITIALLY. But you’ve got to be careful because if you chew it too long then it becomes disordered. By this i mean after it has lost all its “nutritional value” (because it gets broken down and released in the act of chewing) the same act then becomes “disordered”.

Equally chewing some types of gum (ie gum base - chicle) that has no nutritional value, is “disordered” from the start.

Hopefully that’s clear enough for you?

In other words… chewing gum is not disordered because the act of chewing breaks down the gum to prepare it for digestion.

 

[PRmerger]

It depends on the circumstances.

Can you offer a circumstance where it would be moral for consenting adults to engage in a sexual tryst when they are living together in a committed relationship with other people?

 

[josh987654321]

Depends on the circumstances.

What circumstances, could you give me an example please?

Those countries where polygamous marriage is permitted have very different marriage laws to our countries. Those are the kinds of extensive changes I was talking about probably being untenable in practice.

It would be tenable, just would require a bit of work I think.

It’s moral if I can discover nothing immoral about it.

I see.

I don’t understand that, I mean, what kind of sexual activites do you think two men are doing in the bedroom? and yet you can’t see anything immoral in it?

??? You haven’t written a logical argument there, all you’ve done is written two apparently completely disconnected statements with the word “than” (I assume this should have been “then”) between them.

Let me put it this way.

Well you disagree with “design” so therefore sexuality is not designed to be used in any way at all. It should follow that any sexual act with consent for all parties involved should be moral so it doesn’t matter what the sexual act is in question.

Basically you are saying, that the sexual act in question doesn’t determine whether it’s immoral or moral, just the foreseeable consequences. If this is the case than why arn’t more people promiscuous? with the use of contraception and consent for all parties than whats the harm right?

Right, so you are saying that heterosexual sex with contraception is immoral right?

Yes.

??? Are you trying to argue that heterosexual sex with contraception is NOT immoral “across the board”?

No. Heterosexual sex with contraception is immoral.

??? But the sexual act is with contraception. So is it moral or immoral?

It’s Immoral.

Er, ok, but you argued before that the act (heterosexual sex with contraception) was immoral and was morally worse if the couple was not married right?

Yes.

Just like heterosexual sex with contraception by your argument

No. Because the act in istelf is not immoral in marriage, it’s the use of contraception thats immoral.

In a homosexual union, the act in itself is immoral, regardless of circumstance, it’s still a gravely immoral act.

Again, I’m not trying to get you recognise homosexual sex as moral, but by your own argument it ought to be morally BETTER if the couple are married. That’s all I’m trying to get you to recognise.

It’s only morally better in marriage if the sexual act in itself is not immoral.

What difference does marriage make to a gravely immoral sexual act? it’s immoral under all circumstances.

From our evolutionary ancestors. Again, wiki has a nice simple outline of our evolutionary history.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Okay.

Ok, so lets for the moment assume we live in a finite universe with a first cause. How do we get from there to a deity? Many people have tried, most famously Aquinas with his “hey lets call it God”.

How could the first cause be mindless? it has to have a mind behind it, you don’t get our universe from a mindless first cause because you are still faced with that rediculously large improbability like the dictionary coming together through an explosion of ink and paper.

??? Of course not, has anyone come up with a scientific conclusion which discredits fairies, or elves, or “The Dream” or Timeless Quantum Foam, or Brahmin or … No of course not. You can’t get evidence for a negative.

There has been lots of evidence for God in many miracles. God was even made man in Jesus Christ and came to us. Most people when they hit something they can’t explain will find the most improbable answer to deny the most probable.

Ever heard of the “Miracle of the Sun” in the life of St. Faustina?

Nope, there are many hypotheses (including a number which state the universe was created by some form of god or goddess). Thus far there is no compelling evidence for any of them.

Yet there is far, far less compelling evidence to suggest that there is no God and as an Atheist you blindly place your belief in the theory of no God.

Firstly why those criteria? Secondly, why can only a deity meet those criteria? Unless you can show those you’ve gotten nowhere I’m afraid.

In a finite world you will never reach a first cause that is not God, like I said it has to have a mind behind it as the dictionary doesn’t just come together through an explosion of ink and paper.

Only if God actually exists. Thus far there has been a great deal of conflict between science and religion, for example over evolution.

What conflict? I believe in theistic evolution (not darwins theory from apes though). It was designed, science just explains how such design came into being.

There is no conflict with science and religion.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Long since debunked I’m afraid.

Could you provide me with a link to where it is debunked please.

There doesn’t seem to be any arguments for the existence of God here just a selection of stories, are you sure this is the right link?

The link worked for me, it should take you to a large column in which has 20 arguments and each is hyperlinked at the start.

Link doesn’t work for me.

It is the best one too.

Can your pc read pdf files? do you have adobe?

Here is the link again - thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf

Sure, but you have to draw a line somewhere, when is a child no longer a child? Do you want to stop at 30? Well, no that’s just silly? 20? I think most 20 year olds would rather object to being called a child. 18? Well that’s official legal adulthood in most countries, there may be an argument there. 16? well that’s the line some of these studies you are referring to drew, old enough to leave school and get a job… There’s an argument there too.

I would say around 18. However there is no way it would be at 14 or under (<15).

So for a study to judge parenting at such early stages is rediculous I think, it would only make sense if the study was conducted throughout the rest of the stages of development aswell and most certainly over pubescent years, how could they not do that with an issue like this.

Most parents I know get a bit shy about talking details of any sex with their kids. So I don’t suppose they talk details about different sex acts, no.

True, but remember the greatest role models in a childs life are the parents, not what they say but what they do. So what does an adolescent say about acting on their own sexual desires when the sexual acts of homosexuality are apparently moral and normal?

Again, no idea how the latter would follow, so no idea why they would teach their kids that.

They don’t even have to talk about it, their kids will know whats going on closed doors because two of the same sex are inacapable of moral sexual relations.

I still call it parenting, I’m not sure why I would distinguish between parenting by biological parents and parenting by surrogate / adoptive / IVF parents.

Are you serious? you think biological parents are irrelevant to a childs development?

No, it is really REALLY not. Your accusations here reveal nothing other than ignorance of what child abuse is. And to call it the “ultimate act of child abuse” beggars belief. Seriously, stop and think about this for a minute. If you really need to perhaps have a look around the Internet and learn about what child abuse really is.

There are many forms of child abuse some are more horrific than others. Removing biological parents when it does not benefit the child is definately child abuse, it’s removing part of their family, it’s removing the childs sense of belonging and understanding, where they came from, how could that not be abusive when it’s not done to benefit the child?

I must be careful not to be too insenstive when discussing these issues, because in todays society far, far too often are the convenience of parents being put above the welfare of children. and it is absolutely child abuse.

I am very focused on this issue of same sex marriage because marriage is just far too important to be trampled all over precisely because of the damage it does to children who are caught up in situations that were set up for the convenience of adults rather than for the benefits of the children.

May I ask, were you raised by biological parents? you don’t have to answer this if you don’t wish to.

No, a persons identity is NOT defined by who their biological parents are.

**Love of Storge **- means “affection” in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring.

Removing biological ties removes this deep loving relationship shared between family. Our biological mother and father are a part of us, how could that not be important? and so many in this day and age suffer the consequences when the convenience of adults are put above the welfare of the children.

Again, you need to find an appropriate term.

I believe I already have one. Marriage and family is so important for precisely this reason.

Not an endeavour that I wish to engage in I’m afraid. Firstly (quite rightly as you don’t know my credentials) you do not accord me any authority to teach you. Secondly Internet forums are an entirely inappropriate venue for education. Thirdly attempts to teach by post tend to come off as arrogant. And finally there are plenty of more appropriate places to learn on the Internet than from my writing. If you genuinely wish to learn then your best bet is self education. Just try to avoid sites which repeat your pre-existing views, otherwise you’ll suffer from confirmation bias and won’t learn anything.

Thats okay, I wont take it as arrogance. I would like to know what you are thinking about my views and please try and correct and educate me if you feel I have misjudged something, because it’s the best way we can learn.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CandideWest]

In other words… chewing gum is not disordered because the act of chewing breaks down the gum to prepare it for digestion.

Sigh, again Stewstew, you really need to read a post before writing your reply to it. Otherwise your posts are just nonsensical.

Once again, I have agreed you gave one situation where chewing gum could be argued to be “ordered towards” breaking down food ready for digestion. I then produced two examples of acts of chewing gum which couldn’t.

Then pointed out that this just goes to highlight the absurdity of the position here in that chewing gum like “Juicy Fruit” is not disordered INITIALLY. But you’ve got to be careful because if you chew it too long then it becomes disordered. By this i mean after it has lost all its “nutritional value” (because it gets broken down and released in the act of chewing) the same act then becomes “disordered”.

Equally chewing some types of gum (ie gum base - chicle) that has no nutritional value, is “disordered” from the start.

Fingers crossed you actually read my post this time.

 

[CandideWest]

Can you offer a circumstance where it would be moral for consenting adults to engage in a sexual tryst when they are living together in a committed relationship with other people?

Not off the top of my head no. Where are you going with this PR?

 

[CopticChristian]

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Again, hopefully they will realise that discrimination is wrong.

Cheers

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.

Here is the deprivation you asked for. Suboptimal is the word Regenerous used.

narth.com/2012/06/regenerus-study-on-homosexual-parenting/

Regnerus Study on Homosexual Parenting

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups–with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated “suboptimal” (Regnerus’ word) in almost every category.

Now when it comes to chewing gum it is neither nutritious or immoral unless you happen to be involved in a homosexual relationship actively while chewing. In that case the chewing of the gum is subsidiary to the immoral, aberrant sexual acts performed by two men or two women and the chewing in and of itself has no bearing on these immoral acts.

 

[inocente]

narth.com/2012/06/regenerus-study-on-homosexual-parenting/

Regnerus admits that the foundation of his study is too weak to draw the conclusions that many have made - thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/30/1110591/regnerus-admits-gay-parenting/?mobile=nc

Nothing NARTH does is the slightest bit trustworthy, they are loonies:

They tried to give a prize to Robert L. Spitzer for claiming to “cure” homosexuals, but he recanted and apologized for being wrong.

They also awarded a prize to George Rekers, a board member, who later had to resign after he was photographed with a male escort from a gay escort service.

They published a paper by Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of their Science Advisory Committee in which he claimed that “Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… . Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off”.

Another prize was awarded to Warren Throckmorton, but he broke with them over perceived racism and is now a strong critic of them.