(June 9, 2011 at 10:43 am)Epimethean Wrote: So, along your line of reasoning, are some things which affect neural development and operation to be praised, whereas others are to be condemned, and if this is so, how do you arrive at the proper set of judgments? Please don't trot out a holy text, because that will just put you back in the rubbish bin. Since you are using science here (after a fashion), extend your reasoning, and show your rubric.
Well, I have to be honest and say that my judgement is based on a holy text and therefore my perception of the science of homosexuality is also affected by that belief.
(June 8, 2011 at 9:15 pm)Epimethean Wrote: If you didn't "choose" to be straight, then your contention against homosexuals holds-a no water.
Maybe they don't have a choice, afterall. But being gay just seems a little weird to be something which is equally natural as being straight.
(June 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: Whether it's by a gay's choice or genetic, it doesn't really matter. It's not wrong, and I think anyone who thinks it is needs to fucking get in the 21st century.
And this is one of the many things in which secular morals and religious morals are in conflict. So, ultimately, everyone is free to believe that homosexuality is not a bad thing even though I may defend it.
