Why homosexuality is morally unacceptable in 250 words or less . . .

[Dakota_Roberts]

There are some atheists who understand about natural law, but they are few and far between. Most of them are too hung up on the idea that if both people are able to and give consent, then no one is harmed so it’s all right.

I’m not saying not to explain the Church’s position, but to avoid debate in which one side or the other will “win.”

Human rights from the UN/“Enlightenment” point of view are based on the idea of least restricction, not on natural law anymore. The UN proposes that children should be permitted freedom of association! That woman need “reproductive rights”!

Yes, there is, but very few people these days understand natural law.

Since dogs are in fact capable of consenting does that mean…?

[trollface]

 

[OraLabora]

Homosexuality is not “morally unacceptable”. It is a disorder or attraction and is thus morally neutral.

What’s morally unacceptable is carrying the disorder through to lust or homosexual acts.

It is not morally unacceptable for me to find a woman beautiful and appreciate her beauty. It but is is morally unacceptable to lust after her, or worse, because I am married.

It is morally unacceptable to say that someone who has a disorder is automatically immoral. The CCC is very clear on that in that we are not to discriminate against homosexual persons. And charity would mean that unless the homosexual person is in-your-face about it, we should charitably assume that the person is leading a moral life until proven otherwise.

 

[Nate13]

Homosexuality is not “morally unacceptable”. It is a disorder or attraction and is thus morally neutral.

What’s morally unacceptable is carrying the disorder through to lust or homosexual acts.

It is not morally unacceptable for me to find a woman beautiful and appreciate her beauty. It but is is morally unacceptable to lust after her, or worse, because I am married.

It is morally unacceptable to say that someone who has a disorder is automatically immoral. The CCC is very clear on that in that we are not to discriminate against homosexual persons. And charity would mean that unless the homosexual person is in-your-face about it, we should charitably assume that the person is leading a moral life until proven otherwise.

Yes, it is important to do as you have done above and make sure to specify that it is homosexual acts which are morally wrong, not the condition of being attracted to the same-sex that is morally wrong. Many people will assume you mean the latter because of the way they perceive those against homosexual marriage, and its important to make the distinction above.

 

[Bix]

Homosexuality is not “morally unacceptable”. It is a disorder or attraction and is thus morally neutral.

What’s morally unacceptable is carrying the disorder through to lust or homosexual acts.

It is not morally unacceptable for me to find a woman beautiful and appreciate her beauty. It but is is morally unacceptable to lust after her, or worse, because I am married.

It is morally unacceptable to say that someone who has a disorder is automatically immoral. The CCC is very clear on that in that we are not to discriminate against homosexual persons. And charity would mean that unless the homosexual person is in-your-face about it, we should charitably assume that the person is leading a moral life until proven otherwise.

Well said!

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

The parts don’t fit.

 

[Luke_K]

If the person is an atheist then there is no basis for moral right and wrongs except subjective opinions. Frankly, in any discussion with an atheist on morality you have to first ask directly, “What makes anything wrong?” At some point they will have to say something is wrong just because it is, such as “causing non-beneficial pain to sentient beings is wrong.” At that point you can simply reply that homosexuality “just is” wrong. What is the difference between their assertion and yours?

The fact of the matter is, there are no objective, binding moral truths and duties unless there exists a moral agent (person) who is intrinsically good, who is the basis for goodness. Atheists simply have no grounds for arguing about moral truths beyond human opinions. Don’t let them off the hook for that- it’s the strongest argument for theism.