Where have all the Christians gone?

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.
Well if I cant say the moral is for me, in my view then morality must be objective, in which case the existence of two sexes for it must make it morally right. Remember morality by definition is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, so two sexes for it would be the right behaviour and one sex for it would be the wrong behaviour.

Using biology not for what it's intended in itself isn't a moral question because there's no moral right or wrong involved.
Answered above

I can use my lips and breath to play a flute which is not what they were intended for, is that morally wrong?
For me no, not least because there is nothing that exists that suggests we should use our lips and breath to play a flute, unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy

So my question again, what is your reason for one sex acts not being morally wrong?
 
Well if I cant say the moral is for me, in my view then morality must be objective, in which case the existence of two sexes for it must make it morally right. Remember morality by definition is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, so two sexes for it would be the right behaviour and one sex for it would be the wrong behaviour.
The right or wrong physical use isn't right or wrong morally. You have yet to say why "one sex for it" is morally wrong.
For me no, not least because there is nothing that exists that suggests we should use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy
It has the same criteria you have stated all along, that it's something used for that not originally meant. This is your criteria and here you admit that using lips to play the flute for something not originally intended is not morally wrong.
So my question again, what is your reason for one sex acts not being morally wrong?
Because there is no harm involved in the principle of one sex acts.
 
The right or wrong physical use isn't right or wrong morally.
Who said? I said we can use it. Why do you say we cant?

You have yet to say why "one sex for it" is morally wrong.
Told you more than once. Morality is subjective and since there are two sexes for it I would say the two sexes is therefore morally right and the one sex is morally wrong.
What criteria do you use to imply one sex acts aren't morally wrong, or isn't a case of morals?

It has the same criteria you have stated all along, that it's something used for that not originally meant. This is your criteria and here you admit that using lips to play the flute for something not originally intended is not morally wrong.
You havent addressed what I presented to you.
because there is nothing that exists that suggests we should use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy


Because there is no harm involved in the principle of one sex acts.
Ah, ok. However the thing I would say about that is the existence of the two sexes with compatible anatomy is an objective that no one can deny, whereas your claim about harm is subjective and disputable.
 
Who said? I said we can use it. Why do you say we cant?
This makes no sense to me. I don't say we can't.
Told you more than once. Morality is subjective and since there are two sexes for it I would say the two sexes is therefore morally right and the one sex is morally wrong.
But the use something is put to, as long as it doesn't cause harm, isn't a moral issue.
What criteria do you use to imply one sex acts aren't morally wrong, or isn't a case of morals?
Harm.
You havent addressed what I presented to you.
because there is nothing that exists that suggests we should use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy
So? The criteria is the same in both cases, a criteria you have been using all along, that using something for that not originally intended is wrong.

Ah, ok. However the thing I would say about that is the existence of the two sexes with compatible anatomy is an objective that no one can deny, whereas your claim about harm is subjective and disputable.
Your claim that the use of something for that not originally intended is wrong, is subjective and disputable.
 
Last edited:
This makes no sense to me. I don't say we can't.
ugh? You said "The right or wrong physical use isn't right or wrong morally." I am saying of course it can be since morals are subjective.

But the use something is put to, as long as it doesn't cause harm, isn't a moral issue.
Is your opinion, not mine.

Debatable. It also depends what you mean by harm. We are already in disagreement on many issues on this forum as to what is or isnt harm

So? The criteria is the same in both cases, a criteria you have been using all along, that using something for that not originally intended is wrong.
So its not the same at all. Few would say playing the flute is harmful and yet many say same sex relations are harmful.
But as to your specific analogy, it fails because
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it


Your claim that the use of something for that not originally intended is wrong, is subjective and disputable.
Not my claim as shown by your faulty analogy.
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it
 
ugh? You said "The right or wrong physical use isn't right or wrong morally." I am saying of course it can be since morals are subjective.
A screw driver can be used to open a tin of paint. Where's the moral issue here?

Is your opinion, not mine.
This is your opinion, not mine.
So its not the same at all. Few would say playing the flute is harmful and yet many say same sex relations are harmful.
Irrelevant. The criteria you use is the same in both cases.
But as to your specific analogy, it fails because
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it
There is nothing about the biology as you say that shows we should not have one sex for intimacy. Just because we might be made to reproduce doesn't mean it's morally wrong to enjoy same sex intimacy.
Not my claim as shown by your faulty analogy.
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use our lips and breath to play a flute,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it
Just because our biology is one way, doesn't mean it's morally wrong to use it another. This is what you have never shown wrong.
 
A screw driver can be used to open a tin of paint. Where's the moral issue here?
No issue with that.
The issue is...
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use a screwdriver for anything,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it


This is your opinion, not mine.
What? Are you trying to say I dont have the right to an opinion?

Irrelevant. The criteria you use is the same in both cases.
So you find disagreement irrelevant?

There is nothing about the biology as you say that shows we should not have one sex for intimacy.
Yes there is, there are two sexes with compatible anatomy.
Just because we might be made to reproduce .
The two sexes have compatible anatomies regardless of whether they reproduce. . You just wont accept the reality
doesn't mean it's morally wrong to enjoy same sex intimacy
Debatable. most people dont

Just because our biology is one way, doesn't mean it's morally wrong to use it another.
Can mean that.

This is what you have never shown wrong.
Its subjective, you just wont accept the reality being used subjectively
 
No issue with that.
The issue is...
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use a screwdriver for anything,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it
There is nothing that exists to suggest that we should not use our biology for same sex intimacy. Just because it might be intended for one thing, doesn't mean it can't be used for single sex intimacy.
What? Are you trying to say I dont have the right to an opinion?
Yes. What do think having a right to an opinion should mean? That you've done the homework on a particular subject giving you a right to said opinion, or you can have a opinion about something no matter what your level of expertise?
Yes there is, there are two sexes with compatible anatomy.
It doesn't follow from this that anatomy can't be used for single sex intimacy. There is no necessary principle here.
The two sexes have compatible anatomies regardless of whether they reproduce. . You just wont accept the reality
This is disingenuous, because I've said over and over that two sexes have compatible anatomy.
Debatable. most people dont
The numbers of people who enjoy same sex intimacy has nothing to do with whether it's moral or not.

Can mean that.
This doesn't show how it's immoral.
Its subjective, you just wont accept the reality being used subjectively
Why should anyone care about your subjective opinion which is obviously just a weak excuse to exercise your prejudice?
 
No issue with that.
The issue is...
there is nothing that exists that suggests we should NOT use a screwdriver for anything,
unlike the biology where the opposite sex exists for sexual intimacy which shows we should not have just one sex for it
There is a difference between moral "should", and pragmatic "should".

You should use a screwdriver, rather than a chisel, to operate a slot-headed screwdriver, but it is not immoral to use a chisel.
 
There is nothing that exists to suggest that we should not use our biology for same sex intimacy. Just because it might be intended for one thing, doesn't mean it can't be used for single sex intimacy.

Yes. What do think having a right to an opinion should mean? That you've done the homework on a particular subject giving you a right to said opinion, or you can have a opinion about something no matter what your level of expertise?

It doesn't follow from this that anatomy can't be used for single sex intimacy. There is no necessary principle here.

This is disingenuous, because I've said over and over that two sexes have compatible anatomy.

The numbers of people who enjoy same sex intimacy has nothing to do with whether it's moral or not.


This doesn't show how it's immoral.

Why should anyone care about your subjective opinion which is obviously just a weak excuse to exercise your prejudice?
There IS something that exists that says we should not use our body for same sex acts, there are two sexes for it.

People dont need a level of expertise to see there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for sexual intimacy. Your remarks are clutching at straws.

Of course it follows that the existence of two sexes with compatible anatomies for sexual intimacy means there isnt one sex for it.
You guys are keen on dismissing spiritual matters yet you cant even reason with what is evident in front of you.

This is disingenous of you. The compatibility of the sexes stands regardless of you adding in reproduction. Though that just reinforces why there are two sexes for it.

If the numbers has nothing to do with neither does it matter if a few people enjoy it.. most dont

I have given you the observable objectivity to a moral view and your opinion is up to you.

People are entitled to morals without your prejudice against their views
 
There IS something that exists that says we should not use our body for same sex acts, there are two sexes for it.
Why does it follow that we should not have same sex intimacy just because there are two sexes? This you never say.
People dont need a level of expertise to see there are two sexes with compatible anatomies for sexual intimacy. Your remarks are clutching at straws.
I was talking purely about being entitled to an opinion.
Of course it follows that the existence of two sexes with compatible anatomies for sexual intimacy means there isnt one sex for it.
It doesn't follow from this that you shouldn't have same sex intimacy.

You guys are keen on dismissing spiritual matters yet you cant even reason with what is evident in front of you.
You're not presenting anything of any clarity.
This is disingenous of you. The compatibility of the sexes stands regardless of you adding in reproduction. Though that just reinforces why there are two sexes for it.
Why do you keep having trouble sticking to the point? You sere disingenuous because you were ignoring what I've said over and over.
I have given you the observable objectivity to a moral view and your opinion is up to you.
You've yet to make a connection between what something is intended for, and it being immoral to use it for something else.
People are entitled to morals without your prejudice against their views
You haven't given an explanation for said morals that makes sense yet.
 
Real happiness, and peace of mind can not be found in sexual gratification. And that is what romantic love is, sexual gratification. Homosexuals claim... “but, its just love” Not all love is the same. We can love our family, friends, neighbor's and co-workers without the sexual attraction attached to them, right? We can care about what happens to them, do things for them, comfort them, etc... All these things without the sexual attraction and desires attached.

God created humans with a higher degree of reasoning than the rest of creation. We are fully able to control our actions. No one just suddenly out of the blue, in the work place or out in public start acting amorous, as animals do out of instinct. We humans are NOT animals. Society as a whole frowns on this. Because all sexual activity is personal and private. Good way to get fired from a job or arrested, or both.

It is God who decreed, what is right, and what is wrong. And it is God who designed us with two different sexes, with us having the capability of procreation. It is God who decided upon marriage as being between male and female, right from the very beginning.

God says... for men... do not lay with a man as one would a woman, that is abomination; which is a strong word to mean something or an action is distasteful and disgusting. The same for two women.

God intended for us to have children. Children, need more than a roof over their heads, a warm bed to sleep in, food in their bellies and hugs. Two daddies, or two mommy's can not fulfill a child's complete emotional and mental needs. For both sexes provide in their distinctive roles the needed nurturing. No matter what two mommy's or two daddies do, and try as they might. They can not completely fulfill the children's needs.
 
God created humans with a higher degree of reasoning than the rest of creation. We are fully able to control our actions. No one just suddenly out of the blue, in the work place or out in public start acting amorous, as animals do out of instinct. We humans are NOT animals. Society as a whole frowns on this. Because all sexual activity is personal and private. Good way to get fired from a job or arrested, or both.

It is God who decreed, what is right, and what is wrong. And it is God who designed us with two different sexes, with us having the capability of procreation. It is God who decided upon marriage as being between male and female, right from the very beginning.

God says... for men... do not lay with a man as one would a woman, that is abomination; which is a strong word to mean something or an action is distasteful and disgusting. The same for two women.

God intended for us to have children. Children, need more than a roof over their heads, a warm bed to sleep in, food in their bellies and hugs. Two daddies, or two mommy's can not fulfill a child's complete emotional and mental needs. For both sexes provide in their distinctive roles the needed nurturing. No matter what two mommy's or two daddies do, and try as they might. They can not completely fulfill the children's needs.
This is not going to convince atheists.
 
Real happiness, and peace of mind can not be found in sexual gratification. And that is what romantic love is, sexual gratification. Homosexuals claim... “but, its just love” Not all love is the same. We can love our family, friends, neighbor's and co-workers without the sexual attraction attached to them, right? We can care about what happens to them, do things for them, comfort them, etc... All these things without the sexual attraction and desires attached.

God created humans with a higher degree of reasoning than the rest of creation. We are fully able to control our actions. No one just suddenly out of the blue, in the work place or out in public start acting amorous, as animals do out of instinct. We humans are NOT animals. Society as a whole frowns on this. Because all sexual activity is personal and private. Good way to get fired from a job or arrested, or both.

It is God who decreed, what is right, and what is wrong. And it is God who designed us with two different sexes, with us having the capability of procreation. It is God who decided upon marriage as being between male and female, right from the very beginning.

God says... for men... do not lay with a man as one would a woman, that is abomination; which is a strong word to mean something or an action is distasteful and disgusting. The same for two women.

God intended for us to have children. Children, need more than a roof over their heads, a warm bed to sleep in, food in their bellies and hugs. Two daddies, or two mommy's can not fulfill a child's complete emotional and mental needs. For both sexes provide in their distinctive roles the needed nurturing. No matter what two mommy's or two daddies do, and try as they might. They can not completely fulfill the children's needs.
So why did God create humans attracted to the same sex?
 
I'm sure atheists have heard this before, and deep down in the depth's and crevasses of their hearts, where no human can go, that God truly exists, and they are aware of the coming day of judgment instinctively. So they hope that by telling themselves, that the creator doesn't exist, they might be able to prevent His ability to judge them, and send them to hell.

God will judge the immoral, and the wicked, NOT by what they don't know, but by what they do know. All peoples, no matter who they are, or where they live in the world is aware of this, whether they want to admit it or not.

Every generation, no matter where on this earth they lived in the past, have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.

Sin is not a person, it is any wrong thought, action, word, or deed. It is rebellion. A person is said to be a sinner, because his actions and deeds are sinful. There is NOT one human on this earth who has never sinned. NOT one.

There is going to come a day of wrath when God will be the just Judge of all the world. He will give each one whatever his deeds deserve. He will punish all wrong doing whether that be wrong actions, deeds or words, wherever it is found. He will punish the immoral, when they sin, even though they never had God’s written laws, as believer's do, for down in their hearts they know right from wrong. God’s laws are written within them;

God says he will accept and acquit us, declare us “not guilty”; if we trust Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, by coming to Christ, no matter who we are or what we have been like. Yes, all have sinned; all fall short of God’s glorious ideal; yet now God declares us “not guilty” of offending him if we trust in Jesus Christ, who in his kindness freely takes away our sins.


For God sent Christ Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to end all God’s anger against us. In this way, God is being entirely fair, for He is providing a way out from under His wrath and judgement.
 
No it doesn't, because what counts is why God would say it's immoral which you haven't given.
Yeah I did, you chose to ignore it. Human's don't get to decide what is and isn't moral, because in doing so each person will declare others actions as immoral, and overlook their own sinful actions.
 
Back
Top