Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My having sex with my husband harms nobody - not me, not my husband, not you, not society, not my mailman, etc. Therefore, it is not immoral.
Why is that the standard for morality? Who decided that?
Quote:
In fact, it brings joy and happiness to me and my husband. It brings joy and happiness to my parents, to my brothers, to my sisters, to my husband's family, and to my friends knowing that I'm in a happy, loving, and committed relationship with a person I care about and a person who cares about me. Therefore it is a good and moral thing.
The other things I listed are not moral. That was the point. It's ridiculous that you lump homosexuality in with alcoholism, child rape, adultery, etc.
Why do you feel that they are moral, or immoral? How do you propose you have the right to determine morality?
The why to all of those questions is pretty obvious, but only to people who think logically. I could spend time answering them, but why bother? You ask questions, but you don't really seek answers, and you don't accept them when you hear them anyway. You have an opinion, and no matter how shallow or uniformed it is, you are going to cling to it in a desperate denial of the world that is rapidly changing around you.
You didn't answer the questions but you answered a Question about yourself.
Thanks
Why is that the standard for morality? Who decided that?
Why do you feel that they are moral, or immoral? How do you propose you have the right to determine morality?
It's an objective definition of morality based on the criterion of harm - either to one's self or others.
Yours is a subjective definition of morality beholden to no rational criterion, but instead reliant on prejudices born from blind faith in the irrational musings of a very old book you believe transmits the edicts of a supernatural deity. How do you propose that's a good way to determine morality?
The sad thing is, that society has always considered it a "shameful behavior" until recently. I find it sad that our society as a whole is losing its sense of right/wrong.
Define "society". Are we talking American society, or human civilization at large? Because the latter most certainly does not universally consider it shameful behavior in the past or the present. The United States may, but the Us also considered blacks being human and women being more than property shameful behavior.
Quote:
You going to stand up for the "rights" of the adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, alcoholics,etc...etc...?
All of those cause harm to other people (well fornication doesn't necessarily, but the rest do).
Society deems that which is harmful to others to be bad. Even the 10 Commandments primarily only condemns that which harms other people. You'll notice homosexuality is not included in the list.
Even after all of that, do you mean to suggest that we are animals and can't control who we are intimate with? It's the behavior that is immoral--not the desires.
Do you want people to deny and oppress their sexuality just because you do not fit into your idealistic Christian view of the world? You know what happens when you oppress your sexuality, don't you. Just look at the priests etc. abusing children and what not...
It's an objective definition of morality based on the criterion of harm - either to one's self or others.
Why is that the system of morality to be used? What makes it right?
Quote:
Yours is a subjective definition of morality beholden to no rational criterion, but instead reliant on prejudices born from blind faith in the irrational musings of a very old book you believe transmits the edicts of a supernatural deity. How do you propose that's a good way to determine morality?
God said it. It's good. Can you prove to me that the irrational whim of society is any better? Society changes. God doesn't.
Do you want people to deny and oppress their sexuality just because you do not fit into your idealistic Christian view of the world? You know what happens when you oppress your sexuality, don't you. Just look at the priests etc. abusing children and what not...
Does anybody really feel the need to claim they are born that way? Why do they need to say it? Why do they need the pride parades?
I've never felt the need to display I'm Hetrosexual.
It's partly (mostly?) because of attitudes such as you display here that gays feel a need to say that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is not a choice. People like you run around claiming they "choose" to be gay, so of course they're going to feel the need to counteract that with Gay pride parades and statements that they simply are who they are and what they are is nothing to be ashamed of. If it weren't for the likes of Anita Bryant claiming gays are perverts after your children and that they can't be trusted and other such nonsense, there very likely would never have been even one Pride parade because it wouldn't have been needed.
You going to stand up for the "rights" of the adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, alcoholics,etc...etc...?
If their rights are being denied, then yes, I will. Even such as you listed have the right to marry, the right to work, the right to live, etc. I'm talking about standing up for their rights, not agreeing with their behavior. There IS a difference, you know?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
