(August 10, 2015 at 10:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You're missing the point. It's not that ______ is unnatural, so ______ is immoral because it is unnatural. It's that _______ is sacred, so taking it out of a sacred context is immoral because it's sacred. Yes, the sacred context in this case is marital sex, which is a "natural" thing. But it's not because it is natural that it's the right venue for creating life. It's the right venue for creating life because it's sacred. (though I should note that for something to be sacred it means it has a supernatural component to it. I'm saying marital sex is natural here for the sake of the discussion, but we believe it to be more than that.)
And you're actually making my point by reasserting this position. You are employing the naturalistic fallacy without even knowing it and, as I said before, cloaking the fallacy in religious language.
Why is male-female sex the appropriate moral way to conceive a child? Because, as you have already said, God deems it sacred. So here is another question: How, then, do you know God deems it sacred if it's not due to the sheer fact that prior to the advent of modern medicine the only way to conceive was through male-female sex?
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
