Homosexuality

[Rillion]

How can something be wrong when no one is hurt?

The short answer is because G-d said so.

Then we sidetrack onto where morality is defendant on religion or exists only as a human invention. I never know how we got to this point, but it always happens.

No idea how it gets to that point, huh?  Really. 

[Bill Brasky]

How can something be wrong when no one is hurt?

The short answer is because G-d said so.

No.  The people who want you to behave a certain way say God said so.  

[Diogenes The Cynic]

What difference does it make if its nature or nurture?

It's more difficult to defend putting gays to death if it's something that's decided in the womb.

Dude, get off it, and go to hell. I am sick of hearing your shit. Shut the fuck up already.

Wow, I'm fucking awesome.

No, Rabid, you're not. You're a cocksucker.

[rabidfurby]

What difference does it make if its nature or nurture?

It's more difficult to defend putting gays to death if it's something that's decided in the womb.

Dude, get off it, and go to hell. I am sick of hearing your shit. Shut the fuck up already.

Wow, I'm fucking awesome.

No, Rabid, you're not. You're a cocksucker.

This amuses me greatly. Keep up the good work.

[Low-Eight]

The non-agression principle="aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate.

Anything that does not violate the NAP=AMoral
Anything that violates the NAP=Immoral

Under this definiton, nothing is inherently moral.
Under this definition, homosexuality is not immoral. 

This is my definition of morality.

[rabidfurby]

The non-agression principle="aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate.

Anything that does not violate the NAP=AMoral
Anything that violates the NAP=Immoral

Under this definiton, nothing is inherently moral.
Under this definition, homosexuality is not immoral. 

This is my definition of morality.

Yeah, but a book some dead guys wrote about their invisible friend gives a different definition. Therefore, you're wrong and the book is right.

[mikehz]

The argument appears to be, "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, and YOU shouldn't do it."

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The argument appears to be, "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, and YOU shouldn't do it."

What's wrong with that argument? 

"Don't go into a turn that way when riding your motorcycle"  "Why not?"  "Because its not as effective as doing it my way"  "But it doesn't hurt anyone!!!!"  "My way is right because its better, yours is wrong because I don't like it and it doesn't work as well as my way"  "Humph, you're a bigot!"

Not calling you a jerk or a bigot mike, you're a cool guy.  Just trying to point out that the argument that "I don't like it, therefore its wrong and you shouldn't do it" isn't all that bad, provided you have evidence to back up your claims.

[Low-Eight]

The argument appears to be, "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, and YOU shouldn't do it."

What's wrong with that argument? 

"Don't go into a turn that way when riding your motorcycle"  "Why not?"  "Because its not as effective as doing it my way"  "But it doesn't hurt anyone!!!!"  "My way is right because its better, yours is wrong because I don't like it and it doesn't work as well as my way"  "Humph, you're a bigot!"

Not calling you a jerk or a bigot mike, you're a cool guy.  Just trying to point out that the argument that "I don't like it, therefore its wrong and you shouldn't do it" isn't all that bad, provided you have evidence to back up your claims.

But making a law against it would be immoral. 

[Bill Brasky]

The argument appears to be, "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, and YOU shouldn't do it."

What's wrong with that argument? 

"Don't go into a turn that way when riding your motorcycle"  "Why not?"  "Because its not as effective as doing it my way"  "But it doesn't hurt anyone!!!!"  "My way is right because its better, yours is wrong because I don't like it and it doesn't work as well as my way"  "Humph, you're a bigot!"

Not calling you a jerk or a bigot mike, you're a cool guy.  Just trying to point out that the argument that "I don't like it, therefore its wrong and you shouldn't do it" isn't all that bad, provided you have evidence to back up your claims.

I think you're losing sight of the fact nobody is discussing technique of a hobby. 

Theres not a whole lot of people who are crazy-opinionated to the point of violence how you ride your bike on a private track.  They're certainly not calling in clergy. 

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The argument appears to be, "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, and YOU shouldn't do it."

What's wrong with that argument? 

"Don't go into a turn that way when riding your motorcycle"  "Why not?"  "Because its not as effective as doing it my way"  "But it doesn't hurt anyone!!!!"  "My way is right because its better, yours is wrong because I don't like it and it doesn't work as well as my way"  "Humph, you're a bigot!"

Not calling you a jerk or a bigot mike, you're a cool guy.  Just trying to point out that the argument that "I don't like it, therefore its wrong and you shouldn't do it" isn't all that bad, provided you have evidence to back up your claims.

But making a law against it would be immoral. 

I agree and never said anything to the contrary.

Back to the point I have been repeating: 

"Born gay" is an extraordinary claim with little to zero scientific evidence to back it up.  To treat the idea as fact is academically dishonest.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

The argument appears to be, "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong, and YOU shouldn't do it."

What's wrong with that argument? 

"Don't go into a turn that way when riding your motorcycle"  "Why not?"  "Because its not as effective as doing it my way"  "But it doesn't hurt anyone!!!!"  "My way is right because its better, yours is wrong because I don't like it and it doesn't work as well as my way"  "Humph, you're a bigot!"

Not calling you a jerk or a bigot mike, you're a cool guy.  Just trying to point out that the argument that "I don't like it, therefore its wrong and you shouldn't do it" isn't all that bad, provided you have evidence to back up your claims.

I think you're losing sight of the fact nobody is discussing technique of a hobby. 

Theres not a whole lot of people who are crazy-opinionated to the point of violence how you ride your bike on a private track.  They're certainly not calling in clergy. 

Eh perhaps.  For another discussion: HELL YES there are people who are crazy-opinionated to the point of violence how you ride your bike on a private track, and some of them may as well consider themselves "clergy"

[Rillion]

"Born gay" is an extraordinary claim with little to zero scientific evidence to back it up.  To treat the idea as fact is academically dishonest.

First, it was no conclusive evidence.  Now it's "zero" evidence?  I think someone else is being dishonest here.  The evidence presented to you so far has included hormones in the womb affecting sexuality, and personal testimony of homosexuals.  You may not consider that sound proof, but it is  evidence. 

Also, "You're doing it wrong" and "You're doing wrong" are two very different things.  The first is a matter of technique and/or good judgment. The latter is a judgment of morality.  In neither case is something wrong just because someone doesn't like it.  As you admit, you also need to have "evidence to back up your claims."

What evidence supports the claim that homosexuality is wrong?  Nothing whatsoever.  "I don't like it" is not good enough, and it doesn't magically become any better when people are saying God doesn't like it instead. 

[Diogenes The Cynic]

How can something be wrong when no one is hurt?

The short answer is because G-d said so.

No.  The people who want you to behave a certain way say God said so.  

Bill, we have talked a bit with each other in the dow discussion and its obvious that you're not stupid. What you said here however, is.

I can understand Hebrew pretty well, so its not like anyone is pulling the wool over my eyes with what is written in the Torah. I cross referenced it in Legal, and Other works, and its not out of context. So, when could "they" have edited it? After leaving Egypt? Not really possible because it was already written down by then. Why would they do it? What gain could they have with their conspiracy? What backing do you have to your theory other then the fact that you want to believe it?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

"Born gay" is an extraordinary claim with little to zero scientific evidence to back it up.  To treat the idea as fact is academically dishonest.

First, it was no conclusive evidence.  Now it's "zero" evidence?  I think someone else is being dishonest here.  The evidence presented to you so far has included hormones in the womb affecting sexuality, and personal testimony of homosexuals.  You may not consider that sound proof, but it is  evidence. 

Also, "You're doing it wrong" and "You're doing wrong" are two very different things.  The first is a matter of technique and/or good judgment. The latter is a judgment of morality.  In neither case is something wrong just because someone doesn't like it.  As you admit, you also need to have "evidence to back up your claims."

What evidence supports the claim that homosexuality is wrong?  Nothing whatsoever.  "I don't like it" is not good enough, and it doesn't magically become any better when people are saying God doesn't like it instead. 

I never said it was wrong.  You're changing the subject.  I said nothing in reference to the morality of homosexuality, except to note that I don't mind if you want to promote it.

So far the evidence presented to me that homosexuality is not a choice is poor inconclusive claims of hormones in the womb.  A study that was far from conclusive.  Personal testimony from homosexuals is not valid for a scientific study.  Plenty of thiefs and murderers claim that they didn't have a choice, that they were "born kleptos" or "born murderers".  There's no evidence to back up those claims either, because people choose how they behave in their own life.  Some deterministic god doesn't make people "born" anything except human.