Go back
So, it turns out that the Florida Shooter was Gay

So, it turns out that the Florida Shooter was Gay

General


Originally posted by josephw
What's preventing you from joining the majority of the human race that condemns homosexuality? Is it your superior intellect?
To condemn a fellow human being for their sexual orientation, according to the principles I laid out, is not morally sound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellect.


Originally posted by FMF
I would consider it a morally unsound law.
It would be a just law to protect the innocent.


Originally posted by josephw
You know the answer to that question.
No I don't. That's why I asked you. "Good enough" for what?

1 edit

Originally posted by josephw
It would be a just law to protect the innocent.
How so?

There would still be laws to deal with rape and sexual harassment and other sex crimes. It would be the same as it is for heterosexuals.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by josephw
If it was illegal to commit homosexual acts, would you place homosexuals on the list of people considered criminal?

If most people considered homosexuality criminal would you join the crowd in condemning the criminality of homosexuality?

I think you would since it is the crowd, a small minority, that you are aligning yourself with now.

What's preven ...[text shortened]... ining the majority of the human race that condemns homosexuality? Is it your superior intellect?
So in other words, if the majority of humans consider something immoral, then it is objectively immoral?


FMF: I would consider [the criminalization of homosexuality] a morally unsound law.

Originally posted by josephw
It would be a just law to protect the innocent.
There's some circular logic at work in your assertion, I think.

Oh so what do you mean by "protect the innocent"? Oh, that's referring to the non-homosexuals. So the homosexuals are guilty of something, are they? Yes, that's why there's a law to protect the innocent.

1 edit

3 edits

Originally posted by mghrn55
Humans weren't supposed to fly either.

Trying to pretend that you are taking a position based on other than religious beliefs isn't fooling anyone in this discussion.
Sir please let us take a look at your statement. In reply to,

'The physiology of the human body makes it clear that homosexuality is unnatural', you state, 'humans weren't supposed to fly either', a peculiar Ralph Wiggum type of statement. It appears to me to be a non sequitur for a number of reasons. Firstly that even if humans are not designed to fly it does not negate the fact that human physiology makes is clear that certain homosexual practices are unnatural being contrary to the function and physiology of the human body. Secondly it does not even follow on from what went previously there being NO logical connection.

Secondly you have assumed that I am engaging in a pretence in order to 'fool' the contributors of this forum, a rather odious claim. That I have not included a religious aspect may be due to a number of other factors that you have failed to consider, for example the intent was not to provide a religious basis but an empirical one. Thus I suspect because of a proclivity for assuming values and projecting those values as if they have any reality beyond your own cynicism it has led you to make quite frankly some rather absurd and unsubstantiated claims.

Please try to be more careful in future its rather tedious having to take you apart piece by piece and put you back together again.


Jesus Christ

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
So in other words, if the majority of humans consider something immoral, then it is objectively immoral?
No.

It was a metaphorical question I made in reply to what FMF had said.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by josephw
Life can throw some very wicked hard balls at some. Granted. For those of us who have managed to duck in time before being struck down it is difficult to imagine the pain others who were not so fortunate must feel.

I used the term "disturbed" to describe homosexuality. I don't get a charge out of that. But there are many forms of disturbances that effect ...[text shortened]... n it goes.

If we remove accountability we diminish our humanity. Perhaps you follow my point.
How fortunate that you were able to duck in time.


Originally posted by FMF
To condemn a fellow human being for their sexual orientation, according to the principles I laid out, is not morally sound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellect.
What's your point? I never said anything about condemning homosexuals. What I said was that homosexuals and their supporters are disturbed.

Try sticking to what I said instead of adding to it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by HandyAndy
How fortunate that you were able to duck in time.
But not about everything. No one escapes unscathed. No one is perfect.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
There's some circular logic at work in your assertion, I think.

Oh so what do you mean by "protect the innocent"? Oh, that's referring to the non-homosexuals. So the homosexuals are guilty of something, are they? Yes, that's why there's a law to protect the innocent.
What do you think the law is for? To protect the guilty?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by josephw
But not about everything. No one escapes unscathed. No one is perfect.
You're pretty close, Joe. At least you're not a homosexual or a murderer.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.