(April 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: Suppose a person is sexually attracted to children.  Is that morally wrong?  No.  Molesting children is morally wrong.  Its the behavior that matters.  If we can expect pedophiles not act on their attractions because they are morally wrong, then homosexuals can be expected not to act on their attractions if they are morally wrong.

Oh yes, I wondered when that would crop up. Raises it's ugly head every time when some halfwit tries to be clever. Maybe, just maybe you know the difference between consenting adults and peadophilia. One is noone else's business, the other is a crime. But thanks for the stupid analogy.

These threads just aren't complete until the comparison is made abaris.  You can always bank on that one. 

Why are the most awful homophobic fundies attracted to atheist forums? Can't they just be awful homophobes somewhere else like on a Christian forum?

(April 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Heywood Wrote:   
Again these are just my thoughts.

In Australia they have this substance they eat called Vegemite.  Basically it is a jelly made from used up brewers yeast.  The rest of the world thinks the substance is pretty vile but the Australians have chosen to like it.  They have cultivated a taste for it.  Could homosexuality be the same?  Could it be something people with a certain pre-disposition cultivate a taste for?  

I think homosexuality can be a choice in very much the same way cultivating a taste for Vegemite is a choice.  I'm sure some Australians always remember liking Vegemite and would claim they don't have a choice but to like it.

Do you even read what you type?  Are you actually consciously aware of what your brain is putting out here?  Because I have a hard time believing something like that would come from anyone but a Poe.

(April 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: Does God think homosexuality is morally wrong?  I don't know.  The only reason I can fathom that He might think it wrong is the one I gave earlier.  Perhaps God expects us to be guided by reason and not instinct. Perhaps He expects us to know that sex isn't supposed to be homosexual.

And once again, this same vapid assumption that the only thing about homosexuality is anal sex, which the fact that lesbians comprise fifty percent of what homosexuality is refutes with ease.

Heyweird Wrote:Suppose a person is sexually attracted to children. Is that morally wrong? No. Molesting children is morally wrong. Its the behavior that matters. If we can expect pedophiles not act on their attractions because they are morally wrong, then homosexuals can be expected not to act on their attractions if they are morally wrong.

You're comparing apples and oranges in an effort to tar homosexuals.

Never mind the fact that you haven't demonstrated the moral turpitude of gay sex. That "if" of yours renders your point empty so long as you haven't corrected this failing.

---

(April 16, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Pizza Wrote: Why are the most awful homophobic fundies attracted to atheist forums? Can't they just be awful homophobes somewhere else like on a Christian forum?

They'd certainly find a friendlier audience.

(April 16, 2015 at 3:06 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: Suppose a person is sexually attracted to children.  Is that morally wrong?  No.  Molesting children is morally wrong.  Its the behavior that matters.  If we can expect pedophiles not act on their attractions because they are morally wrong, then homosexuals can be expected not to act on their attractions if they are morally wrong.

Oh yes, I wondered when that would crop up. Raises it's ugly head every time when some halfwit tries to be clever. Maybe, just maybe you know the difference between consenting adults and peadophilia. One is noone else's business, the other is a crime. But thanks for the stupid analogy.

It is a legitimate comparison.  One sexual attraction is being compared to another.  The point of it is to show that it is not unreasonable to expect free agents to abstain from acting on their impulses if doing so results in immoral behavior.  It boils the argument down to pure morality.  Religious people who believe homosexuality is wrong generally do so because their God tells them homosexual behavior is immoral. 

Abaris, if you think the comparison is about consenting adults and non consenting children......it is you that is the halfwit.  Its about showing that just because it exists in nature doesn't necessarily make the behavior moral.  Its about showing that just because one has an impulse he has no control over having, one still can't be expected to refrain from acting upon that impulse.

The comparision is very effective at showing those things which is why instead of dealing with it you simply hand wave it away.

---

(April 16, 2015 at 4:03 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: You're comparing apples and oranges in an effort to tar homosexuals.

Never mind the fact that you haven't demonstrated the moral turpitude of gay sex. That "if" of yours renders your point empty so long as you haven't corrected this failing.

I haven't tried to demonstrate the moral turpitude of gay sex. If I am honest...and I am.....I can't find any non-religious reason to find gay sex between consenting adults immoral.

Now that being said, do I believe God thinks homosexual behavior is immoral? I do not know. He could or He could not. He could think heterosexual sex is immoral for all I know. I don't pretend to know the mind of God. That not knowing the mind of God doesn't prevent me from considering lines of thought that God might consider. Unlike Chucklehead, I am capable of looking at things from different perspectives and possible perspectives that others might have.

For myself, I have reasoned out that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. I have reasoned that it doesn't provide the same value.....unless there is a a God and He has deemed it such. It is simply unreasonable to expect a Godless completely naturalistic world to be egalitarian as many of you atheists believe it to be.

---

(April 16, 2015 at 3:20 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(April 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Heywood Wrote:   
Again these are just my thoughts.

In Australia they have this substance they eat called Vegemite.  Basically it is a jelly made from used up brewers yeast.  The rest of the world thinks the substance is pretty vile but the Australians have chosen to like it.  They have cultivated a taste for it.  Could homosexuality be the same?  Could it be something people with a certain pre-disposition cultivate a taste for?  

I think homosexuality can be a choice in very much the same way cultivating a taste for Vegemite is a choice.  I'm sure some Australians always remember liking Vegemite and would claim they don't have a choice but to like it.

Do you even read what you type?  Are you actually consciously aware of what your brain is putting out here?  Because I have a hard time believing something like that would come from anyone but a Poe.

Nobody knows if people are born with a homosexual orientation or if they acquire a homosexual orientation.  If people make choices which causes them to acquire a homosexual orientation then the fact they are homosexual is the result of a choice they made.

Do I believe what I wrote?  Unlike you I consider many different things.  Just because I have thought about something doesn't mean I believe it.  You seem to let others do your thinking for you.

Well, it's certainly unreasonable to expect that so long as it's filled with folks like yourself...sure.  : shrugs : Nice to finally agree on something, I suppose.

(April 16, 2015 at 4:08 pm)Heywood Wrote: I haven't tried to demonstrate the moral turpitude of gay sex.  If I am honest...and I am.....I can't find any non-religious reason to find gay sex between consenting adults immoral.

And what remains is just a pile of stinking woo. So if the religious reasons for despising gays are so powerful, I wonder why the good people doing it have no problem with eating shellfish and lobsters, shave their beards and hair and wear cloths of two different fabrics without a moments thought. It's on the same page of that old book and it's considered an abomination as well.

(April 16, 2015 at 4:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, it's certainly unreasonable to expect that so long as it's filled with folks like yourself...sure.  : shrugs : Nice to finally agree on something, I suppose.

Even if folks like me were suddenly annihilated, it would still be unreasonable to believe that a Godless completely naturalistic world would be so egalitarian that homosexuality and heterosexuality would be equivalent.  The truth of my point stands whether or not I exist. 

The only advantage of people like me going away would give to you, is it would allow you to be happy in your ignorance.