Where have all the Christians gone?

No it wasn't. The point wasn't about what happens in nature being right or wrong, but was to do with whether it's natural or not. You seem to want to avoid that issue.

What happens naturally in nature is the criteria for what is natural. Being aware of the consequences of actions make something open to moral question. These are very different things.

Playing tennis is unnatural, is it therefore immoral? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?

But as it happens naturally in nature, it can't be unnatural.

Because it happens naturally in nature, of course.

Umm, but I don't think humans should eat their young just because it happens elsewhere in nature, because it's not something that is natural to humans. Homosexuality is a part of nature as exhibited by it occurring naturally in nature, including in humans.

But natural/unnatural shouldn't be used as a basis for morals, as exampled by my question that you have avoided.

So again, playing tennis is unnatural, does that makes it morally wrong? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?
So when animals perform same sex acts they are acting contrary to biology and nature. That is why homosexual acts are unnatural.

Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals.
So what is your baais for morals? Why for example.should a one sex act be moral when it us dysfunctional because there are two for it?
 
So when animals perform same sex acts they are acting contrary to biology and nature. That is why homosexual acts are unnatural
No, because same sex acts happen naturally in nature so they can't be contrary to biology and nature. Even so just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's a moral question, it doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong.

This leads to the questions you are deliberately avoiding. Playing tennis is unnatural, does that makes it morally wrong? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?
 
So when animals perform same sex acts they are acting contrary to biology and nature. That is why homosexual acts are unnatural.
No, because same sex acts happen naturally in nature so they can't be contrary to biology and nature. Even so just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's a moral question, it doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong.
Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals.
You're just repeating yourself without reference to my points on this from #714, being, but natural/unnatural shouldn't be used as a basis for morals, as exampled by my question that you have avoided.

So again, playing tennis is unnatural, does that makes it morally wrong? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?
So what is your baais for morals?
Whether something is deliberately unfair and/or harmful in any way or not.
Why for example.should a one sex act be moral when it us dysfunctional because there are two for it?
For said act to be a moral question there has to have a question of unfairness or deliberate harm about it. Just because it might be dysfunctional doesn't introduce these moral factors.
 
Can you describe then how we could.be discussing morals?
We aren't, yet.
All you're doing is saying "X is wrong as I define wrong", while I am saying "it's not wrong as I define wrong".

If you want me to change my mind, you must convince me to adopt your definition, or show that it is wrong according to mine.
 
No, because same sex acts happen naturally in nature so they can't be contrary to biology and nature. Even so just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's a moral question, it doesn't necessarily mean it's morally wrong.

This leads to the questions you are deliberately avoiding. Playing tennis is unnatural, does that makes it morally wrong? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?
Sexual acts happen in nature with mammals which have two sexes for it.
Why do you look to nature and consider eating young offspring unnatural but same sex acts natural? Why the obsession with sexual deviation?
 
Sexual acts happen in nature with mammals which have two sexes for it.
And so do single sex acts.
Why do you look to nature and consider eating young offspring unnatural but same sex acts natural?
Already answered in post #714. Why are you ignoring my answers only to then repeat your questions?
Why the obsession with sexual deviation?
Who, you or me? I'm not obsessed by it, you're the one thinking there is deviation going on here, not me.
 
And so do single sex acts.

Already answered in post #714. Why are you ignoring my answers only to then repeat your questions?

Who, you or me? I'm not obsessed by it, you're the one thinking there is deviation going on here, not me.
Same in nature, one sex acts are unnatural where there are two sexes for it.
why do you think humans shouldnt eat their young then, when it happens in nature?
 
...
Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals.
...
So sacrificing yourself for country is morally wrong, but paracytism is morally right in your view?

Or is this "Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals" stance one you adopt as and when convenient, and drop just as readily?
 
So sacrificing yourself for country is morally wrong, but paracytism is morally right in your view?

Or is this "Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals" stance one you adopt as and when convenient, and drop just as readily?
So what is your objection to using biology as a basis for morals? Especially as you have no objective criteria to offer.
 
See post #714 for the answers that you have ignored.
No it doesnt.. you never explained why you think humans should engage in homosexual acts and eat their offspring because it happens in nature.
The existence of two sexes for it is the same everywhere in nature.
There are two sexes for it, not one and nothing you argue can change that
 
Back
Top