Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

Less bigoted people than yourself.

Circular argument.

Anyone who truly understands human behavior and doesn't rely on there morals from text inspired millenia ago by narrow minded, desert dwelling tribal leaders and self appointed religious leaders I suppose.

So you rely simply on the opinions of others as to what is wrong and what is right? That’s scary.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, and the circle is closed to bigots, as it should be.

[Darwinian]

So you rely simply on the opinions of others as to what is wrong and what is right? That’s scary.

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. I simply answered your question as to who, in my opinion, doesn't consider homosexuality wrong. You're reading things in my reply that simply aren't there.

Anyway, I would have thought that if anyone relies on the opinions of others to form their own moral compass it would be you, even if those people have been dead for over 2000 years.

[Statler Waldorf]

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. I simply answered your question as to who, in my opinion, doesn't consider homosexuality wrong. You're reading things in my reply that simply aren't there.

Well if you had said, “In my opinion homosexuality is not wrong” I would not have had any issues with that. Of course you didn’t say that though.

Anyway, I would have thought that if anyone relies on the opinions of others to form their own moral compass it would be you, even if those people have been dead for over 2000 years.

God is not dead though, nor is he fallible. So there is no problem basing morality on His revelation.

[lucent]

It is wrong for several reasons. First, because fornication, which is sex outside of marriage, is a sin. Second, because marriage is only between a man and a women. Therefore, there is no situation in which homosexual sex is acceptable. Just as it is unacceptable to have sex with animals. Third, because it is an aberration for Gods plan for the family. Lastly, because it is simply an abomination in Gods sight. It is also socially destructive..history has shown when you approve of homosexualiy, paedophilia is not far behind. It is deviant behavior which corrupts the cultures that tolerate it.

If someone disapproves of adultery are they a bigot too?

False equivocation. Adultery is a betrayal of trust. Since it injures another party, a case that it is immoral is much easier than love between people with similar body parts.

By the way, maybe you can answer this question, as no other Christian could. Why does love become evil when the body parts are similar?

[Darwinian]

It is wrong for several reasons. First, because fornication, which is sex outside of marriage, is a sin. Second, because marriage is only between a man and a women. Therefore, there is no situation in which homosexual sex is acceptable. Just as it is unacceptable to have sex with animals. Third, because it is an aberration for Gods plan for the family. Lastly, because it is simply an abomination in Gods sight. It is also socially destructive..history has shown when you approve of homosexualiy, paedophilia is not far behind. It is deviant behavior which corrupts the cultures that tolerate it.

Some might say that you are a deluded, bigoted idiot and it is exactly this sort of attitude which is socially destructive and if no-one actually thought like you did then the human condition would be a lot healthier than it is today.

But certainly not me..

[Statler Waldorf]

Some might say that you are a deluded, bigoted idiot and it is exactly this sort of attitude which is socially destructive and if no-one actually thought like you did then the human condition would be a lot healthier than it is today.

But certainly not me..

What!? He lays out a clear and concise argument as to why it is wrong and you respond with nothing more than a backhanded insult? I expected more from you Darwinian. :-(

[Darwinian]

Some might say that you are a deluded, bigoted idiot and it is exactly this sort of attitude which is socially destructive and if no-one actually thought like you did then the human condition would be a lot healthier than it is today.

But certainly not me..

What!? He lays out a clear and concise argument as to why it is wrong and you respond with nothing more than a backhanded insult? I expected more from you Darwinian. :-(

I'm sorry but he linked homosexuality with pedophilia which, in my book, is a huge NO, NO!

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm sorry but he linked homosexuality with pedophilia which, in my book, is a huge NO, NO!

Hmmm

[The Grand Nudger]

A clear and well thought out argument would contain all of the "if" modifiers inherent in his statements. I must have missed them. When he (and you, and others like you) stop throwing around your opinions and fantasies and present some evidence then you'll deserve a decent conversation. Until then you get nothing.