Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immorality of Homosexuality
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 14 of 218 (396058)
04-18-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-17-2007 5:36 PM


Nuggin asks:
Why is homosexuality immoral?
Only the moralists can answer that. I don't care about Christian "immorality," or Muslim "immorality,"but I do care about the highest common good. For me, it comes down to choice vs. nature. Most homosexuals claim to be naturally gay, as opposed to deliberately choosing it as a lifestyle. So, if being gay (or whatever) is not a matter of choice, how can it be judged as immoral?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-17-2007 5:36 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 04-18-2007 7:37 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 17 of 218 (396062)
04-18-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by macaroniandcheese
04-18-2007 2:54 PM


Semen contains Dangerous Things.
yep. it contains these horrible things that make nasty little parasites. no one should ever come into contact with semen.
Don't blame those semen thingies, blame those testicle thingies. Cut those babies off and the dangerous thingies in the semen go away.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-18-2007 2:54 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 18 of 218 (396074)
04-18-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nator
04-18-2007 7:37 PM


Is it immoral for us to have thwarted nature for so long?
No, not at all. But it could be immoral, by some relevant standard, to be forced into worrying about it, which I don't suppose you do.
Is brushing your teeth immoral because thwarts nature?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nator, posted 04-18-2007 7:37 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 7:18 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 23 of 218 (396256)
04-19-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
04-19-2007 7:18 AM


Clinton v. Waxman
But then, homosexuality being a person's "choice" rather than their "nature" is irrelevant, too.
If neither choice nor nature is relevant, then what is? God's word? Maybe God makes those kinds of choices for us. Maybe God, afterall, is responsible for all that sodomy. Maybe God meant for all of us to be gay but the Devil made most of us heterosexual instead. Please help me out with this. I wanna know why even Hillary Clinton looks better to me than Henry Waxman.
MHOIAW
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 04-19-2007 7:18 AM nator has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 168 of 218 (434101)
11-14-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by EighteenDelta
11-14-2007 1:38 PM


Botrh sides of bigotry
Eighteen Delta writes:
Why do you care about other peoples sexual predilections?
If that is a rhetorical question then why do you care about other people's marriage institutions?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-14-2007 1:38 PM EighteenDelta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Taz, posted 11-14-2007 3:11 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 170 by jar, posted 11-14-2007 3:17 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 177 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-14-2007 3:50 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 182 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 4:07 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 191 of 218 (434180)
11-14-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taz
11-14-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Both sides of bigotry
Taz writes:
Actually, many of us do believe people ought to have the right to bestiality.
You're right. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bestiality, bigamy, incest, fucking your stamp collection”nothing I can think of should be banned from marriage. But it's a moot point. Any two hermit crabs of either sex could get married on Animal Planet, if the producers decided to hold ceremonies. "Marriage" is an ambiguous term”you can have a marriage between two 2x4s. It's the "civil union" part that matters. If gays want to join in civil unions, let them. If they want to call themselves "married," let them. Let every one and every thing get married in whatever kind of place they choose. But let's not give civil-union rights to amorous pets and farm animals, or to other sexual persuasions that have no socially redeeming value.
The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Just stick with civil-unions. I think the idea of civil-unions for gays has socially redeeming value. And I think that when gays demand that their civil unions be called "marriages" is clear evidence that they are more interested in coming out of the closet than in joining the ranks of reasonable people.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taz, posted 11-14-2007 5:31 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Taz, posted 11-14-2007 9:15 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 207 by StElsewhere, posted 11-16-2007 6:36 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 193 of 218 (434201)
11-14-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Taz
11-14-2007 9:15 PM


Re: Both sides of bigotry
Taz writes:
So, I ask you again, what's wrong gay people getting married socially and legally?
What's legal about "marriage"? The only truly legal part is the civil-union part”the license. Just take the word "marriage" off of it and the problem is solved. Let anybody or any thing get "married" if they want to. But the government should care only about civil unions.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Taz, posted 11-14-2007 9:15 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 11-15-2007 12:00 AM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024