Where have all the Christians gone?

Well, since you know that the practise of homosexuality perverts the moral character
Telling others what they know, is arrogant.
For instance, just supposing that there is a creator God (eminently reasonable per Paul in Roms 1). Do you really think that homosexual activity is going to favorably dispose God towards oneself and one's partner?
Why not?

Why assume that a creator god would oppose homosexuality?
 
There is a difference between what is necessary for biological life and what is the supreme good. Biology dictates that we must eat to live but does eating make us good? What if one eats too much to the point of gluttony? In your position, you say, biology dictates that Animals reproduce through sex but does that make them good? Are two dogs mating in the front yard morally good for following their biology? No. Good is more than biology. If it were mere biology then God would be doing it himself.

Seneca argues that the supreme good comes from soul processes which humans are uniquely created to do. We apply reason, wisdom, or moral consciousness to biology, to nature in order to produce good in others and in ourself.

“This being so, you should consider whether one has a right to call anything good in which God is outdone by man. Let us limit the Supreme Good to the soul; it loses its meaning if it is taken from the best part of us and applied to the worst, that is, if it is transferred to the senses; for the senses are more active in dumb beasts.​

The sum total of our happiness must not be placed in the flesh; the true goods are those which reason bestows, substantial and eternal; they cannot fall away, neither can they grow less or be diminished. 17. Other things are goods according to opinion, and though they are called by the same name as the true goods, the essence of goodness is not in them. Let us therefore call them "advantages," and, to use our technical term, "preferred" things. Let us, however, recognize that they are our chattels, not parts of ourselves; and let us have them in our possession, but take heed to remember that they are outside ourselves [in our flesh]. (Seneca, moral letter #74)​
Is a question of morals. My point is that there are two sexes for sexual intimacy, so not one. That reproduction also occurs this way is why the anatomies are compatible and different.

Now as far as morals are concerned, regardless of any specific cases, I would say the human species reproducing in principle is a good thing and the human species not reproducing is a bad thing. Would you not agree?
 
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.
Quotes please, as I really don't think I was using nature as a guide to morality as I think it a poor guide to morality, as is the biology of humans.
 
Now as far as morals are concerned, regardless of any specific cases, I would say the human species reproducing in principle is a good thing and the human species not reproducing is a bad thing. Would you not agree?
No - it is not moral to reproduce, nor is it immoral not to.
 
Last edited:
Now as far as morals are concerned, regardless of any specific cases, I would say the human species reproducing in principle is a good thing and the human species not reproducing is a bad thing. Would you not agree?
It's more nuanced than that. Reproducing too much is a bad thing, so some not reproducing is a good thing.
 
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.
There are two sexes necessary for reproduction, but two sexes are not necessary for sexual behavior outside of reproduction.
 
What we’re saying is that nature is not a good source for what is moral nor immoral. We’re not saying that homosexuality is moral because it occurs in nature, we’re saying that it wouldn’t be immoral if it didn’t occur in nature (it does occur in nature, but that is still irrelevant).

You are the ones that are saying it’s immoral because it is unnatural, but that is wrong on two counts: (1) homosexuality does occur in nature, in other mammalian species, so it is not unnatural,
That is quite irrelevant

and (2) the unnatural is the wrong criterion to use to determine if something is immoral anyway, because things like playing tennis don’t occur in nature yet tennis is not immoral.
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.
 
Back
Top