And you have failed to show that the censure of sodomy by Aristotle, Plato, and Jefferson was based on their religious beliefs rather than just plain common sense and the natural law.
You brought them up in the first place; the onus is on
you to present them as relevant to this thread, something you have failed to do. Bring us their condemnations, and we will go from there.
In which of their writings do Plato, Aristotle, and Jefferson refer to sodomy as a violation of the will of the gods?
See above.
Again, I ask you to stop reading my posts as you simply delight in tearing them apart for the sake of tearing them apart rather than having an intelligent discussion.
I cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone incapable of holding one. Nor can I with someone unwilling. Which case it is is irrelevant; the effect is the same.
Plato, Laws [636c] “And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”
This is identical to the OP’s post, the flaws of which I and others have pointed out already. Plato assumes natural law. What we need is a proof of natural law, not an extension of natural law to gay sex. The OP already did that. Read my posts, please. I have already explained all of this very clearly.
Aristotle Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child.”
This is identical to the OP’s post, the flaws of which I and others have pointed out already. Aristotle assumes natural law. What we need is a proof of natural law, not an extension of natural law to gay sex. The OP already did that. Read my posts, please. I have already explained all of this very clearly.
Where do they refer to the gods?
Where do they prove natural law?
So can we find “other reasons” for homosexuality being immoral?
Did you forget the reason of common sense? Common sense should tell anyone that anal sex is hurtful, and therefore immoral.
That is not an argument. That is an assertion. And not all erotic behavior involves penetration, so “sodomite” is not even an appropriate term in this covnersation.
The same argument would be used against sadism. The sadist gets pleasure from hurting others. Does that mean his act is moral? I don’t think so. The masochist gets pleasure from being hurt by others. Does that mean his pleasure is moral? No. Anyone with half a brain would say both conditions are not only perverse (unnatural), but immoral.
Anyone with half a brain would realize that you are making a No True Scotsman argument. May I suggest developing arguments that appeal to something other than
your opinions on what common sense are?
Common sense dictates that two men attracted to each other, kissing, and then having orgasms is not morally problematic at all. Why would it be? Prove me wrong.
Because some people seem incapable of actual discourse, I will lay out some suggestions for actually approaching this topic:
- Natural law is not yet a given. Arguments involving natural law must begin with the establishment of natural law as correct.
- Any assumptions of objective morality are not yet givens, see 1) for how to proceed.
- “Common sense” or any such argument is neither relevant nor productive.
A note on 3): This is because,
as I very clearly mentioned, common sense is explicable. Not touching a hot stove is common sense, but can also be independently verified through chemistry. In any intellectual discussion, only the underlying reason matters.
Thus, saying that sodomy is immoral because common sense dictates that anal sex being painful indicates that it is immoral violates both 2) and 3). In particular, independent verification, not common sense, is useful here, and the idea of “morality” has not been established at all. Furthermore, it is a violation of 1) because it skirts natural law, which the reader can easily deduce.
. Every week its a different thread and I grow tired of having to defend myself before hordes of angry Catholics who think I’m going to break up their marriages and destroy society.