Objective Morality?

[DeistPaladin]

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.

You know, I said we were done talking after you cited a carefully staged, edited and produced propaganda piece by Pat Robertson as some sort of irrefutable testimony but you attempted to answer my question so I suppose I should explain to you why your arguments were fallacious.

First, because fornication, which is sex outside of marriage, is a sin.

I don't think so. I define wrongdoing as that which betrays someone's trust, infringes on their rights or is reckless with their well being. I therefore don't see anything wrong with sex outside of marriage. In fact, I think it's healthy for couples to find out if their sexually compatible before they tie the knot. Even casual sex isn't morally wrong so long as no deception is used, both partners are quite willing and proper protection is used.

The logical fallacy you used here is appeal to authority. God says so and so that's why. Even those in authority need to explain their arguments. "Because so-and-so said so" isn't an adequate reason to believe something.

Second, because marriage is only between a man and a women.

You've created an arbitrary definition and then used it as "proof" for another belief. I used to think this was called "begging the question" but there may be another name for this fallacy. First, you need to explain why I should accept your "proof", in this case your definition of marriage.

At one time in our country, the law said the definition was one man and one woman of the same race. In the OT, the definition of marriage was one man and all his property, however many wives and concubines he could afford. There is no universal definition that has stood for all time and even if there was, you'd still not have the right to force it on someone else.

Therefore, there is no situation in which homosexual sex is acceptable.

Your conclusion is based on your arbitrary definition of sin combined with your arbitrary definition of marriage.

Just as it is unacceptable to have sex with animals.

The logical fallacy here is a red herring. You've introduced an irrelevant topic as a distraction, possibly as an attempt to change the subject and possibly as an attempt at implied false equivocation. Let's stay on topic here.

Third, because it is an aberration for Gods plan for the family.

Once again, you've presented an unproven assertion as "proof" for another belief. Even if it is true, we have an appeal to authority. CauseGodSaysSoThat'sWhy is not a logical reason to believe something.

Lastly, because it is simply an abomination in Gods sight

You seem to be repeating the same argument and putting different bullet points on it. First, you say it's a "sin" (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's not legitimate form of marriage (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's unacceptable (GodSaysSo). Then you say it goes against God's plan for the family (GodSaysSo). Now you say it's an abomination in God's sight (GodSaysSo).

I don't think this is so much fallacious reasoning as it is "padding the list".

It is also socially destructive

I thought you just said "lastly" in your previous bullet point?

Kindly show me peer reviewed case studies either in history or in psychology that back your assertion. The real field of psychology does not regard homosexuality as socially destructive.

paedophilia is not far behind

Logical fallacy: slippery slope.

It is deviant behavior which corrupts the cultures that tolerate it.

See above. Asserting something isn't sufficient. You have to offer proof that your assertion is true.

Next?

---

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

Hmmm

That's the most thoughtful, well supported argument you've come up with yet. I can't refute that statement.

---

Oh! So if you commit adultery and don’t get caught then it’s no longer wrong because you didn’t actually do any harm to anyone?

Logical fallacy: Strawman.

Homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to God’s decreed will. (EDITED for clarification).

Logical fallacy: Unsubstantiated assertion and appeal to authority.

How many times must you be told GodWillsIt does nothing to contribute to our understanding of morality?