Where have all the Christians gone?

So what is your answer to.my question?
Where are the quotes that show I think that morality is based on nature?

In itself, I don't think nature contains good or evil in a moral sense. It does contain things which are good or bad for us in a practical sense.
 
But the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man.
Now all you have to explain is why using said anatomy for things nature didn't intend is a moral question.

Nature didn't intend for us to play tennis, so is playing tennis immoral?
 
That is quite irrelevant


It is against nature, rather that correlative with nature. So clothes protect from adverse effects of nature, and exercise is beneficial to the body, but homosexuality is good for nothing except to satisfy perverse cravings.
How can homosexuality be against nature when it occurs in nature? You can call it immoral, or wrong, but it’s just illogical to say that something in nature is against nature.
 
So if lots of things in nature are wrong, some things in nature are right? I am not the on using nature as a guide, whatsisface was. I am using the biology of humans.
Is biology not nature?

Do you think it is immoral to take medicine? That is not normal biology for humans. Does hat make it morally wrong?

My point is that there are two sexes for it, not one. I am saying that is the reality the moral can be based on.
We all agree there are two sexes. The issue is how you get from there to concluding homosexuality is wrong.

As I asked before, do you think unicycles are inherently evil? How about one-piece swimsuits?
 
The body needs exercise. Couch potatos die early, as do homosexuals. Go figure.
How much of that is due to self-destructive behaviour resulting from low self-esteem because of rampant homophobia?

And if you say homosexuality is wrong because of the risks, do you also think skiiing and rock climbing are immoral? How about driving a car?
 
Where are the quotes that show I think that morality is based on nature?

In itself, I don't think nature contains good or evil in a moral sense. It does contain things which are good or bad for us in a practical sense.
I said it can be.. that is my criteria. What is yours.
 
Now all you have to explain is why using said anatomy for things nature didn't intend is a moral question.

Nature didn't intend for us to play tennis, so is playing tennis immoral?
Yes or no? the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man.

No explaining anything can change that 30-15
 
Is biology not nature?
Is some animals eating their young biology?

Do you think it is immoral to take medicine? That is not normal biology for humans. Does hat make it morally wrong?
My question first the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man. yes?

We all agree there are two sexes.
Nope, there are some on this forum who think there are 3 or more
The issue is how you get from there to concluding homosexuality is wrong.
No, the issue is there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. You cant acknowledge it!

As I asked before, do you think unicycles are inherently evil? How about one-piece swimsuits?
Doesnt affect the fact that there are two sexes with compatible anatomy for sexual intimacy. Are you going to acknowledge that or keep dreaming up irrelevancies and try and bully people into answering?
 
Yes or no? the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man.
Already answered many times over.
No explaining anything can change that 30-15
What you have yet to explain is why using anatomy for something other than intended is a moral question. You've avoided answering this question many times now. You don't have an answer.
 
Already answered many times over.
I dont see it. And indeed a simple yes or no would have answered it again.
So yes or no?

What you have yet to explain is why using anatomy for something other than intended is a moral question.
If you can tell me you agree that the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man, then we can deal with whether its moral or not.
 
Now all you have to explain is why using said anatomy for things nature didn't intend is a moral question.

Nature didn't intend for us to play tennis, so is playing tennis immoral?
So do you agree that the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man.?

In typical woke style you keep telling me you have answered that many times every time I ask you.
 
So do you agree that the man's anatomy was made for the female and the female anatomy was made for the man.?
Good grief, I have answered yes many times over.

Now explain why using something for reasons other than intended is a moral question.
 
Good grief, I have answered yes many times over.

Now explain why using something for reasons other than intended is a moral question.
Again l, no clear yes or no answer, just the same claim you have answered.

Now, I have specifically answered your question but I will specifically tell you again. To make a subjective judgement that something is right or wrong, one might have an objective reason. Since there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for sexual intimacy, for me that would be morally right, and therefore same sex acts would be morally wrong.
But it is subjective.
So do you have an objective reason to base your moral view of this on? If you dont like biology, or the intended use of something as an criteria, how do you do it?
 
Again l, no clear yes or no answer, just the same claim you have answered.

Now, I have specifically answered your question but I will specifically tell you again. To make a subjective judgement that something is right or wrong, one might have an objective reason. Since there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for sexual intimacy, for me that would be morally right, and therefore same sex acts would be morally wrong.
Just saying "for me that would be morally right" doesn't say why it is a question of morality, which was the question I asked.
But it is subjective.

So do you have an objective reason to base your moral view of this on? If you dont like biology, or the intended use of something as an criteria, how do you do it?
Using biology not for what it's intended in itself isn't a moral question because there's no moral right or wrong involved.

I can use my lips and breath to play a flute which is not what they were intended for, is that morally wrong?
 
Back
Top