My belief is irrelevant. I'm pointing to everyone else's belief on the matter. I contend that no one actually wants to die.
You only have a belief as to what other people's beliefs on the matter are.
What I find strange is the continued shifting of goal posts. First it was actually asserted by many people that denying homosexuality is a moral crime, all the while asserting that morals don't actually exist.
I've not done that. Morals exist. No goal post shifts from me.
Once that view was thoroughly shown to be bankrupt, then the next tactic was to say that homosexuality was perfectly fine from a moral view, but that things like beastiality and pedophilia were squalid. Again, though, under a loose ethic, it tends to undermine the point of relativity. Yet, some still maintained it.
It doesn't undermine moral relativism. As has been shown to you. That you continue to think it does is worrying.
The next shift is that suffering is the qualifier for what is moral. But I have produced evidence of people consenting to sufferage. Apparently a woman consenting to be murdered is as moral as pie in the sky. Why not just let the killer go. Afterall, he was so kind to oblige the wishes of the woman.
Suffering has always been one of the prime indicators of morality. Do as you would be done by, neh? I have not moved on this stance. A woman consenting to be killed is a difficult moral question and I have never said otherwise.
What they should be asking me (oh dear, I'm giving away the keys to the kingdom here) is how I can prove that homosexuality is morally wrong. I cannot do it. That is my lesson in futility. The least I can do is say that God has deemed it so. The most I can do is make an argument from nature showing that homosexuality is incompatible and inconsistent with nature.
Nobody is asking because they know you cannot. You are making an assertion that relativism has a problem but you are not able to show that.
...supporting the right of consenting adults to engage in a sexual activity that has little to no impact on other people.
Not at all, since the subsequent torture, mutilation, and murder of innocent people at the hands of, say, a dictator's henchmen, have no impact on me either.
Really? They have an impact on me and they certainly have an impact on
other people. It was other people I was talking about not, not you or me.
See, there is a general rule of them amongst pagans. If it feels good, do it.
Actually no it hasn't. Pagans have "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" and that might be a modern invention.
Therefore, the if it feels good, do it, because if it feels good, it must be good adage doesn't apply. Consent, lack of suffering, etc, etc, are not qualifiers for what is good and moral.
Actually they are the best, but probably not sole, indicators that we use to determine if something is immoral.
™ Version 4.2