P
- Status
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
I don’t know what you posted.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Fornication is also intrinsically disordered.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
We could list all the evil man could possibly commit, but it wouldn’t justify homosexual acts.
B
Bradski
Guest
Not a great question, but one that does show that matters such as these (should we kill animals for food, if so, what sort of animals, should we hunt, own guns, what sort of guns etc) are moral questions for which we have no religious guidance. You may find Catholics who are vegetarian or who have no problem rearing and killing their own sheep or find nothing wrong with eating whale meat. You’ll have gun owners and those who aren’t. Different strokes, as they say. That is, we all make up our own minds about matters such as these. It’s what makes the world go around and keeps things interesting.
So when you said this…
…it wasn’t true. There is no one specific, correct and church or God sanctioned moral rule for every contingency.
Now, as I said before, I sincerely hope that what you are doing with your opposition to homosexuality follows on from a reasonable amount of thought you have put into what exactly is wrong with it. And that those reasons, which you have arrived at yourself, happen to match those of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the reasons the church themselves give helped convince you. I sincerely hope that you are not simply ‘toeing the party line’ so to speak. In other words, I hope you are against homosexuality and you are a Catholic rather than being against it because you are a Catholic.
Now the rest of us (atheists and most other Christians) are free to make these decisions ourselves (just as you are, actually). And, as we have seen above, there is no definitive correct moral stance that you can say trumps all others. You may be able to point to one with which we all agree (see below for a trite example) but that doesn’t mean that only one exists in all circumstances.
The reasons against homosexuality, outside of a religious argument, do not hold up. And by your own admission, you simply see certain sexual acts as disgusting and that is simply opinion. And the fact that considerably more heterosexual people engage in what you quaintly call sodomy (which includes oral sex) and you have shown zero concern for that in any post whatsoever, shows that what you are really interested in is two men engaging in anal sex and that seems to cloud everything you write about gay people. You can’t seem to get past that.
And it’s against natural law? Well, the only reasonable answer I can come up with for that argument (which is only applicable to this scenario in this case) is: So what…?
Are you saying that people wouldn’t be worried about the fact that you like donuts but would be distressed if you liked abusing children? And that that proves there are Universal Laws?
Congratulations. You win this week’s Most Fatuous Argument.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s actually a very logical application of the position that some are arguing here (not sure yet if you are one of these folks–you seem to understand that there are indeed moral facts) that morality is simply a matter of opinion.
If it’s a matter of opinion, then it’s akin to someone’s taste in food. I like peaches. You like plums. Neither one is right or wrong.
If it’s not a matter of opinion, then there are somethings that are moral facts–to wit: it is always wrong, in all places, in all times, to rape women.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
You mean physics?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. And also like: it’s always wrong to rape someone. It’s always wrong to abuse children for fun. It’s always wrong to have sex with someone you’re not married to. It’s always wrong kill an entire race of people.
Like that.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
One of these things is not like the others.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
You mean that comparing masturbation and engaging in ethnic cleansing is invalid because while sins they are very different sins?
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
The concept of ‘sin’ is arbitrary and irrelevant to morality and ethics.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What if we just substituted “wrong” for “sin”.
Do you think right and wrong are relevant to morality and ethics?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
So what? So AIDS. So the universal disgust with sodomites, not just mine. So the censure of sodomy by virtually every civilized people from the dawn of human history. That counts for nothing in your estimation, but it does count for something to others.
It is, of course, simply opinion that sodomy is good for the soul, as some sodomites maintain. That the secular argument against sodomy cannot include the religious argument means nothing to me. The secular argument still exists (adverse health consequences), and the argument in favor of sodomy is difficult to justify other than I suppose the inordinate tickle sodomites get when they go at it. But if there is a God, and sodomites (nor atheists) can never know for certain there isn’t, then defending an abominable act like sodomy is something they, not I, will have to answer for on judgment day. I pray they will have repented their sins, as I will have to repent mine and you will have to repent yours if we are to be saved.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But lots of heterosexuals do think it’s OK to put a penis into a mouth. So those machine parts fit together whereas a penis in an anus doesn’t fit together?What do you have against machine parts fitting together?
Do you think it’s rational and pleasing to force machine parts that don’t fit into each other?
One thing is rather likely: the vast majority of heterosexual humankind do not think it rational, pleasing, or sane to to force a penis up an anus.
B
Bradski
Guest
No, there are no moral facts. Facts and morals are not the same thing. Facts are what we are supposed to be using to make moral decisions. Otherwise you can say (and a lot of people here are saying it) that something is immoral simply because it is immoral.
You can preface any comment with the words: ‘In my opinion…’ It might be better if everyone did it. As far as I’m concerned it is implicitly tagged on to every single thing I write. So when you are presented with what someone describes as a fact, you consider it and decide, in your opinion (unless we are perhaps talking scientifically or mathematically – e does equal mc squared or the square root of 9 is 3) if it can be described as such. It can then be used to make a decision on morality that might be pertinent.
You have said that it is wrong to rape women. I agree for various reasons. So that statement, as far as we are concerned, in our opinion, is a fact. And we can give those reasons for coming to that decision (perhaps the physical and mental pain caused) . We can then say that, based on that fact, it is immoral to rape women. Not because rape is an immoral act in itself but because it is based on facts that we have agreed are relevant and, in our opinion, worthy of consideration. That is, it causes physical and mental pain.
So if we discuss homosexuality, you could say that it’s immoral. I then have to work backwards to find out why you are saying that. What, in your opinion, are the facts that have determined your conclusion. You saying that it is just a moral fact cuts no ice whatsoever. I need reasons otherwise you have no argument.
Now what are the reasons we are being given?
Charles thinks that public health is a good reason. Well he doesn’t seem to care one whit about the health of the galactically large number of heterosexuals who indulge in exactly that about which he is complaining so I’m not even going to consider that. So what’s next?
He really can’t get around this anal sex thing, can he…But someone’s opinion that something is disgusting is not even an argument. It is, literally, an opinion. I find pot noodles disgusting but that’s hardly a basis for me suggesting they should be banned. Anything else?
Ah yes. It’s always been frowned upon, so that will do for me! All these people can’t be wrong. So we’re going to go with the majority. Except that you are now in the minority.
You don’t seem to understand, Charles. A secular argument, by definition, cannot include a religious one. You’d best stick with quoting scripture to back up your flaccid argument because you are failing badly with all other options.
I think you’re winding us up, Jay Dee Vee. Nobody could possibly type that and keep a straight face.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
“Sodomy” could not have been censured by virtually every civilized people from the dawn of human history since the concept of “Sodomy” didn’t even exist before the eleventh century. It was an invention of medieval theologians. As former Harvard Divinity School professor and now Distinguished Professor of Religion and Politics at Washington University Mark D. Jordan says in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 1:
Professor Jordan further says on page 29:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then it is only an opinion that rape is wrong?
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, Bradski. A fact is simply something that is incontrovertible.
“a thing that is indisputably the case.”
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition+of+fact+
Here is a fact: the capital of the US is Washington DC.
Similarly, here is another fact: it is wrong to rape.
Both statements are indisputable.
Facts.
P
PRmerger
Guest
- Status