Indian triumph

Originally posted by @philokalia
If there is not an objective standard for what is moral and what is immoral, how could anyone be immoral?

Let’s assume there is an objective moral standard, does it include burning people alive as being morally acceptable?

Originally posted by @fmf
Why would my moral standards need to "take priority" over those of Indonesian theocrats?

I just wanted to see you go all in.

Thanks for going all in.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Sin" exists in the minds of people who believe in supernatural "law givers". It's not controversial to state this.

Right, and so you would basically say something along the lines of...

- Morality is completely & totally subjective;
- Sin isn't real (to me).

Originally posted by @divegeester
Don’t homosexuals have “different social conventions”...Why are you not defensive of them?

You are claiming that much of India exists in a state of “almost feudal conditions”? And that is why they choose to defecate in the streets, Or are you saying that because they are poor and therefore choose to defecate in the street?

What about feudal, imp ...[text shortened]... an homosexuals who have no recourse, but who don’t defecate in the street, do you condemn them?

I believe that if there were adequate toilet facilities in India, they would not defecate on the streets.

I have heard that there are many homes that do not even have their own clean, private facilities for using the bathroom.

Originally posted by @philokalia
I just wanted to see you go all in.

Thanks for going all in.

You have sidestepped my question which was engaging something you said. Why would my moral standards need to "take priority" over those of Indonesian theocrats?

Originally posted by @philokalia
Right, and so you would basically say something along the lines of...

- Morality is completely & totally subjective;
- Sin isn't real (to me).

I don't believe any god or gods have revealed divine laws to us that we can transgress, so, of course, "sin" only exists in the minds of those who believe in divine laws.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Keep this in mind when reading my post. My original post was carefully stated because I have been down this path plenty of times before.

[quote]Sex leads to procreation when done properly. In order to raise children, people pair off into stable, monogamous family units which instill children with values, discipline, and provide them with stability an ...[text shortened]... e still plenty of arguments as to why homosexuality is bad and should not be legally sanctioned.

What the hell man??

Your post that prompted me to respond started with the phrase "From a secular perspective, from a perspective where we are just arguing for some public concept of moral norms", which was the only reason I joined in in the first place.

And then you respond to me by arguing from the christian point of view and you even throw the bible in my face.

I don't care about what your religious beliefs and silly superstitions say.

Could you answer my questions again, but this time actually stay true to your own words and argue from a secular point of view?

If you can't do that, why did you even bring it up?

Originally posted by @philokalia
Changing cultural norms mean nothing.

Of course they do.

Originally posted by @philokalia
If you do not believe in the Bible, though, and are not a Christian, there are still plenty of arguments as to why homosexuality is bad and should not be legally sanctioned.

What are they?

Originally posted by @fmf
Morality is inherently subjective and contextual.

If that is the case why aren't people allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If that is the case why aren't people allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

You ought to ask someone who thinks people "aren't allowed" to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Originally posted by @fmf
You ought to ask someone who thinks people "aren't allowed" to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

So if you believe people are allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong what are you on about?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if you believe people are allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong what are you on about?

Because, to my way of thinking, "people are allowed" to discuss things like morality on a debate and discussion forum.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because, to my way of thinking, "people are allowed" to discuss things like morality on a debate and discussion forum.

Cool, so if you have no issue with people believing that homosexuality is wrong, why are you trying to convince people that your belief is right and that they are wrong?

Originally posted by @fmf
Your Christian God figure is not relevant to me.

Which is why the concept of an objective standard of morality doesn't register with you.

You are inhibited conceptually, and unable to think except along mono-dementional lines. Your mind is fixed with the idea that morality is "subjective and contextual", which prevents you from understanding what rational objectivity based in knowledge is.

Homosexuality is an act of defiance against nature, and is morally abhorrent to the mind of a rationally objective thinking man or woman that knows the difference between right and wrong.