(August 6, 2015 at 11:08 am)Anima Wrote:(August 6, 2015 at 10:28 am)Jenny A Wrote: You're making a rather odd comparison here, the behavior we punish murders, pedophiles, necrophiliacs (I'm thinking about the mourners here), abusers, psychos, and sociopaths for injures other people and it's that behavior that we punish. The behavior of homosexuals does not (except perhaps your sense of propriety and taboo).
In this regard you would be correct under they are not hurting anyone. But as I have argued throughout this thread the determination of harm is to be objective and not subjective. In this regard I presented the argument #1 in accordance with biology to show the orientation leads to action with a particular result that is harmful and a universal result which is also harmful. This is to say they result in an objective harm biologically speaking.
This thread is endless. I'm not combing 70 pages to figure out what biological harm. Tell me. Harm to the voluntary participants doesn't count. Neither does hurt feelings, that icky feeling some people get imagining gay sex, or lack of fertility (there is no shortage of people on the planet).
Quote:Now if one wishes to argue a subjective determination (which I would not advise) we have also provided this argument in terms of physical and metaphysical harm. Neither of these arguments have been refuted and are logically sound. The best response as of yet is the harm should be tolerated, without really giving a reason why.
What harm?
Quote:Furthermore the argument to not hurting anyone is predicated on an argument to ignorance. I am sure we are all aware of anecdotal evidence of their harm to others. Even when they "come out" to their parents. Do we think those are tears of joy or anger of happiness? No. They are physical manifestation of a metaphysical harm. This is where special pleading comes in by which it is argued to deny them the right to express is a metaphysical harm that should be avoided while the metaphysical harm of their expression is just ignored or written off as bigots suffering because of their bigotry (an ad hominem attack). So we know their orientation results in a subjective harm and thus we are compelled to move to the objective determination in order to avoid special pleading.
We do not prohibit things because it upsets mommy and daddy. If we did, not changing religions, keeping the family business alive, going to med school because daddy really wants you to and mommy scrubbed floors so you could, would be moral imperatives. They aren't.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.