Being gay is a fetish.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gotta say, I'm not seeing any downside to being ignorant of the finer points of rank bigotry as expressed by yourself amigo.  If I'd never heard anyone espouse the silly shit you've machine-gunned into this thread I can't imagine how the quality of my life or anyone else's would be decreased.  

[Heywood]

I haven't tried to demonstrate the moral turpitude of gay sex.  If I am honest...and I am.....I can't find any non-religious reason to find gay sex between consenting adults immoral.

And what remains is just a pile of stinking woo. So if the religious reasons for despising gays are so powerful, I wonder why the good people doing it have no problem with eating shellfish and lobsters, shave their beards and hair and wear cloths of two different fabrics without a moments thought. It's on the same page of that old book and it's considered an abomination as well.

You would have to ask them.  

[Neo-Scholastic]

Anyone can see that people are born with either the XX or XY set of chromosomes. Being either male or female is an unalterable biological fact in the same way as skin pigmentation, hair, and eye color. That is not so clear with respect to gender identity. So attitudes about gender identity are in no way comparable to racism or sexism. It is doubtful much that homosexuality must always manifest, like color-blindness, but is more likely to be a latent genetic disposition, like depression, that might only express under the right circumstances. It could even be that case that different root causes contribute to gay, lesbian, and transgender identities. The blanket statement ‘I was born this way’ is every bit as simplistic as saying that one just decides to be homosexual.

The homosexual intersection of biological condition with culture appears to be most analogous to the difference between deafness and Deaf culture. Hearing loss is an objective medical condition; however, an entire Deaf culture has emerged out of the use of sign language, community, and shared experience. That is as far as the analogy holds. No one believes that deafness is a moral failure and the unique aspects of Deaf culture still fall within normative behavior.

To some extent everyone is biologically predisposed to one type of sin or another. Some people were born with a short-fuse for anger. Others may have a nervousness personality that predisposes them to avarice. Still others have enormous appetites and are tempted into gluttony. This is no less the case for sexual sins. Many people have very high sex drives that tempt them with adultery, masturbation, and lechery. Most religions teach that with Divine aid they can overcome their weaknesses and live morally. Secular law and civil order also depend upon each person taking responsibility to restrain themselves from intemperate and licentious behavior.
Most Christians, myself included, can accept the idea that people have various predispositions, some very strong, like alcoholism. LBGTQ people are no different from anyone else in this regard, so any condemnation on the basis of the biological innate tendency is hypocritical. At the same time, most Bible-believing Christians, do not think biological dispositions excuse sinfulness or cultural artifacts, like self-selected gender identity, built around unrepentant sin. Condemnation of unrepentant homosexual behavior is no more bigoted than condemnation of unrepentant greed, adultery, gluttony, rage, or heterosexual sodomy. Many Christians like me have a live-and-let-live attitude towards all sexual sin; if it doesn't affect me then it’s between you and the Lord. Believers can tolerate living in an over-sexualized and materialistic society but believers shouldn't be expected to condone, celebrate, or materially support the neo-pagan sensibilities of secular culture.

[One Above All]

No intersex people exist in Mazmo!'s world. Good to know!

[Heywood]

Gotta say, I'm not seeing any downside to being ignorant of the finer points of rank bigotry as expressed by yourself amigo.  If I'd never heard anyone espouse the silly shit you've machine-gunned into this thread I can't imagine how the quality of my life or anyone else's would be decreased.  

You want to surround yourself and engage with people who think exactly like you.  If you want to spend your time intellectually masturbating have at it. You have the right to be self determinant.  Just realize that although you might be content......you don't grow very much if at all engaging in such behavior.

[The Grand Nudger]

Condemnation of unrepentant homosexual behavior is no more bigoted than condemnation of unrepentant greed, adultery, gluttony, rage, or heterosexual sodomy.

All equally bigoted.....agreed.  

I'm not interested in growing into a bigot, btw, Heywood. Peddle your wares to someone else - who gives a fuck. I'm just calling it like I see it. -to help you grow........and all that....

[Heywood]

Condemnation of unrepentant homosexual behavior is no more bigoted than condemnation of unrepentant greed, adultery, gluttony, rage, or heterosexual sodomy.

All equally bigoted.....agreed.  

I'm not interested in growing into a bigot, btw, Heywood.  Peddle your wares to someone else - who gives a fuck.  I'm just calling it like I see it.  -to help you grow........and all that....

I'm calling as I see it too.  You don't want to engage intellectual conflict.  You want to engage in an intellectual circle jerk.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Here's how I logically read your argument, Heywood:

1. It is not "morally wrong" to be attracted to children.
2. It is morally wrong to molest children (that is, to act on that attraction).
3. This is a specific example of the following universal: IF X is morally wrong, THEN we can demand people not do X.  This is true EVEN IF desiring to do X is NOT morally wrong.
4.  Applying that universal to another specific:  IF Homosexuality is morally wrong, THEN we can demand people not engage in Homosexuality.  This is true EVEN IF having homosexual desires is NOT morally wrong.

Of course, this still leaves open the question of whether homosexuality is morally wrong.  It's not, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate Heywood's proposed Universal IF->THEN, because we haven't satisfied the IF.  In that regard, his "comparison" just doesn't really say anything; it's like saying "IF cats have wings, THEN dogs won't be able to catch them."  This doesn't really tell us anything, because cats don't have wings.

However, I think Heywood's proposed Universal is invalid for a different reason.

I agree with Heywood in a couple of respects: a) it is not morally wrong to desire to do certain things but not act on them.  b) There are things that we demand people not do, even though they desire to do them.

But - and this is the point of this rambling pseudological screed - I think Heywood's incorrect about WHY we demand people not engage in certain behaviors: It's not because those behaviors are immoral, but because they cause harm.

Heywood's statement that "just because it exists in nature doesn't necessarily make the behavior moral" is correct, I suppose, whether you believe in objective morality or (like me) think the idea's hogwash.  However, the REASON we disallow pedophilia and allow homosexuality is NOT because we believe one is immoral and the other is moral.  It's because one does objective, legally cognizable harm and the other does not.

The real injustice that the Christian view (that is, "Homosexuality is wrong because God says homosexuality is wrong") perpetrates is that, by framing the issue in a "moral/immoral" paradigm, one is rejecting the "not harmful/harmful" paradigm.  This abstracts the issue, shifting the focus from real world results/people who are actually hurt/"how can we focus our time and money to make this world a better place" and turns the discussion into one of abstract moral dicta/a focus on ideas rather than people/"how can we make god happy?"  That, I think, is tragic.

Note: Something like 9 posts have been made since I started typing this.  If any of them invalidate or cover things I say above, well, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOTHING

[The Grand Nudger]

What conflict Heywood?  Lemme crib this for you.

-Ignorant shitwit says ignorant shit.

 "You're an ignorant shitwit".

-Thoughtful exposition of ones personal opinions backed up with examples that demonstrate the value and veracity of their position

"Never thought of it that way...can;t agree, but you make a good point."


..........that you find yourself having the former conversation with me, rather than the latter...is entirely your own decision.  If you'd like to have a different conversation..you can make that happen at any point.  It is, entirely, on you.  Have at it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As I read your reply to Heywood, I see that you accept the logic but not the content, i.e. since in your mind, homosexuality isn’t immoral then Heywood’s objection doesn’t apply. My reply to whether or not homosexuality is harmful self and others is that even if it is, it’s not harmful enough to justify legal prohibitions and restrictions on personal liberty.
But making it a purely moral issue cuts both ways. If the issues around homosexuality are only differences of opinion about morality, then making pro-gay public policies amounts to forcing your liberal secular irreligion onto others, in clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment (in the USA).