Lets discuss: Homophobia

[holy king]

there is no natural purpose to violate.

but let's act as if for a moment:
what i ask proof of is that it is actually immoral to violate such a purpose. proof of the natural law existing, you know?

you state that the violation of natural purpose is immoral, but give no reason whatsoever as to why that would be a true statement.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, so now all gay people use condoms and are in long term monogamous relationships and engage in those high risk practices equally as heterosexuals do.

Got it.

All hetrosexuals are like that? To say that infidelity and recklessness are 'gay' problems is a little extreme

 

[Jehoshua]

@Holy_King

Argumentum ad lapidem (again) just because you say something is so doesn't make it true.

I have already shown that biologically the sexual act is procreative. This is its natural purpose. It is undeniable biologically that the sexual act is primarily procreative in nature. Furthermore the duality of the sexes highlights furthermore the complimentarity between the sexes in facilitating this procreative intent. To simply say that sex has no purpose is logically baseless as then it would simply be an empty act devoid of biological meaning. This is naturally incorrect as it is neccessary biologically for the PROCREATION of a species.

Once again all you are doing is thowing simplistic statements my way in an attempt to refute my arguments.

 

[LucyDuke]

The natural law is precisely that. The understanding of natural morality is ingrained in each human person. However that requires qualifiers in tangible acts which thus break that natural morality.

Thus it is against morals to do (x) because it violates the natural purpose of (y) and thus immoral. This natural morality is ingrained in every human person.

Hardly contradictory and definitely not simply a case of its immoral because its immoral. You simply are holding quite frankly to a ridiculous interpretation of what I have said perhaps because your own behaviour is thus immoral under it, the only other option is you simply are not intellectually inclined to understand the written word.

Oh, hm, we could work with this part.

Why is it immoral to "violate the natural purpose of (y)"?

(BTW, I really couldn't care less whether you think my behavior is immoral. The last thing I need is your approval for anything.)

 

[holy king]

there is no natural purpose to violate.

but let's act as if for a moment:
what i ask proof of is that it is actually immoral to violate such a purpose. proof of the natural law existing, you know?

you state that the violation of natural purpose is immoral, but give no reason whatsoever as to why that would be a true statement.

edited later.

 

[holy king]

@Holy_King

Argumentum ad lapidem (again) just because you say something is so doesn't make it true.

no. i explained that whole evolution thing, and concepts and laws of nature having no "purpose" in earlier posts.

 

[Jehoshua]

The natural purpose of y would be in the case of sexual acts either the procreative or unitative purpose. To deny either one would be to deny one of the purposes for the sexual act in the case of the procreative purpose the biological one known through nature. It is acting contrarily and as such immoral precisely due to this contrary usage.

As to my approval you are right you hardly need my approval. But ultimately it is better for the human person as a whole to live according to the natural moral law. However ultimately that line of discussion would lead beyond homosexual acts and thus beyond the purview of this thread.

 

[holy king]

you still fail to explain why it is immoral to violate the biological purpose of sex.

again, i dont agree there is one, as the concept of "purpose" is much to anthropocentric to use on non-human entities and, heck, most of all abstract concepts, but let's assume there is one for the sake of argument. it's just semantics anyway, i guess at this point. (not a hundred percent sure though).

so please, tell me why violating the biological purpose of sex is immoral. and dont do it by going circular and stating it's against the natural law. (a law which' existence you havent proven so far.)

 

[Jehoshua]

no. i explained that whole evolution thing, and concepts and laws of nature having no "purpose" in earlier posts.

And I have responded to that already in a post which thus far you have conveniently ignored in favour of holding on to your own irrational logic.

as to why violating the natural biological purpose of sex is immoral. It is ipso facto immoral because of this fact as it denies the ultimate purpose of the sexual act. Upon your logic we could go down a line of perpetual whys endlessly as you ask why for every explanation. What would you have me propose, that simply because you can do something it is permissable, so far under your logic I could go gravedigging looking for human corpses to consume and it would be perfectly moral, when under the natural law this is immoral as it violates the dignity of the human person.

 

[holy king]

the natural purpose of a horse certainly isnt to be a means of transport for humans.
is horseback riding immoral?

 

[SerriaFox]

Why is it when I condemn heterosexual relationships, where neither party has even thought about marriage, I am not considered Heterosexualphobic? Just because you think something is wrong does not make you phobic.

I just don't want it publicly supported (i.e, a marriage license is a statement of public approval) or accepted as the norm.

 

[Jehoshua]

the natural purpose of a horse certainly isnt to be a means of transport for humans.
is horseback riding immoral?

and neither is the natural purpose of stone hypothetically to be carved into a beautiful building. You are simply avoiding the question by raising another which does not neccesarily hold moral implications.

 

[useless]

You want to deny homosexuals the ability to marry, that in itself is malicious.

 

[holy king]

and neither is the natural purpose of stone hypothetically to be carved into a beautiful building. You are simply avoiding the question by raising another which does not neccesarily hold moral implications.

you didnt ask a question.

i asked one:

so please, tell me why violating the biological purpose of sex is immoral. and dont do it by going circular and stating it's against the natural law. (a law which' existence you havent proven so far.)

look if you want to say it's immoral because it's against the natural law to act against the biological purpose of something you would have to prove that the natural law exists and that acting aginst something's biological purpose is immoral under that law.
you have thus far failed to do so.

 

[Jehoshua]

marriage by definition is between a man and woman where within the procreative and unitative purpose can be fully expressed. The so called gay marriage is simply an attempt to redefine a term to suit a specific agenda. It is a non-existent right.

Furthermore as the procreative purpose and thus the possibility of a natural familial structure to serve for the perpetuation of society is impossible, gay marriages fail in the definition of marriage and violate the time-honoured goal, definition and moral basis for the family and marriage.

 

[holy king]

definitions of legal concepts can be changed. just dont make typos.

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. "The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination." On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

 

[Jehoshua]

look if you want to say it's immoral because it's against the natural law to act against the biological purpose of something you would have to prove that the natural law exists and that acting aginst something's biological purpose is immoral under that law.
you have thus far failed to do so.

and yet again you obfuscate by stating your assertion again when you have failed to respond to my previous explanations against that assertion, namely that the tangible manifestation of the natural law is that for an act to be moral it must meet the conditions that I have described previously and not violate any of them.

What you have failed to do is actually engage in a reciprocal dialogue leading this discussion to devolve into me answering your questions and you throwing accusations back without addressing my points.

 

[holy king]

what you fail to do is prove that natural law exists. you say it manifests itself, and in what way. that is not proof it exists, that is saying it exists and nothing else.
you know, argumentum ad lepidum.

you simply act as if it was some kind of axiom with which you can prove homosexuality is immoral. this is not the case.

 

[Jehoshua]

The natural law has nothing to do with national jurisprudence beyond that it preferably should be ingrained in its judicial structure.

Furthermore you once again failed to address my previous posts regarding evidence for the natural law. By simply responding in kind with an accusation. Perhaps you would like to trawl back through the posts and actually respond to where I address this because I am not going to sally forth when all you are doing is failing to actually respond appropriately to my post. To do so would be a waste of my time and ultimately an exercise in irritation as I would have to perpetually deal with your idiocy in responding without getting an adequate response in turn which is actually respondind to what I have said.

 

[Flying Pig]

as to why violating the natural biological purpose of sex is immoral. It is ipso facto immoral because of this fact as it denies the ultimate purpose of the sexual act..

I quite agree. Now we're at it, I believe we should follow religious law because it is right to obey the commandments laid out by God. You can trust me, I'm an honest man. You can take my word on that because I always tell the truth.