Part SIX: Christianity and Homosexuality

[Dantae]

Are you now saying that what isnt reality is a better basis for morality than what is reality?

it's not reality, it's just your somewhat twisted view of reality.

[Dantae]

Rape is anatomically functional if it is man and woman, whereas homosexual acts aren't. But so are poligamy and adultery anatomically functional if man and woman. You will be well aware that the Christian position is faithful loving man/woman union, not rape, adultery homosexual practice or poligamy, but as to anatomically functionality, homosexual acts aren't.

Only if one denies reality and changes just what "anatomically functionality" means.

[Tolpuddlematyr]

Are you now saying that what isnt reality is a better basis for morality than what is reality?

Nope. Morality is a personal judgement based on the instincts, knowledge and experience of the person making the judgement. Anatomy is no basis for morality. Indeed, you seem to agree with this, since the only moral judgement you actually do base on anatomy is that regarding homosexuality. Special pleading much?

[Tolpuddlematyr]

So are you saying that even prominent gay activists must fall by the wayside of your extremist position? . Really? Be careful what you wish for.

Nope, I am saying that the law is a good law, fairly applied. Your claimed "prominent gay activists" are free to think what they like. It will continue to be so applied.

[Elliot Chiles]

Just like what you do.

The difference is I demonstrate why you haven't given good responses.

I pointed out that my "invalidity proof" can only be refuted in two ways; either you must show that one of the premises is false, or that the structure of the proof is invalid, and you have done neither. This means that you don't disagree that your argument is invalid, or you can't be bothered intellectually to get your hands dirty and respond directly to the "invalidity proof".

Consider this argument:
------------------------------------------------------
Premise: Roses are red. (X are Y) (X="Roses",Y="Red")

Therefore,

Conclusion: The sky is blue. (Y is Z) (Y="The sky", Z="blue")
------------------------------------------------------
There are two possible ways to refute this argument; to show that the premise is false, or to show that the structure is invalid. Since the premise is true, I can't do it the first way. However, I can show that the argument is invalid in structure by showing how the structure can force a true premise to lead to a true conclusion, and this is why the argument is illogical and bad.
------------------------------------------------------
Premise: Squares are closed 4 sided shapes (X are Y) (X="Squares", Y="closed 4 sided shapes")

Therefore,

Conclusion: The sun is pink (Y is Z) (Y="The sun", Z="pink").
-------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, I've used the argument structure to make a true premise lead to a false conclusion, and so "X are Y" does not logically lead to the conclusion that "Y is Z", even if "X are Y" is true. This is the reason why your only argument is completely invalid and therefore is not logical in any way, because your premise (when worded correctly) is true, but it does not logically lead to your conclusion because the structure you are using is invalid.

being two sexes with corresponding genitalia for sexual intercourse. At the moment, one minute you say you acknowledge that and the next you show you don't when you propose one sex acts

I'd acknowledge that humans have genitalia that were designed for male-female sexual acts. The genitalia were not designed for male-male or female-female sexual acts, but saying that male-male and female-female sexual acts are morally permissible does not logically contradict the first sentence.

Similarly, plugs are designed for plug sockets, and proposing that it is morally permissible for plugs to be hung on walls as a weird decoration or used as an item in pass-the-parcel does not logically contradict the first sentence.

[brightmorningstar]

Have you ever read the bible?

I have obviously, but have you?

Where does it describe same sex acts of female homosexuals?

It describes the error of female with female acts. Your position is what the Bible doesnt say. Show us where the Bible countenances same sex acts and acknowledge the Biblical exclusions and condemnations of same sex acts, which is in the OP and the subject of the thread.

[brightmorningstar]

This is what you said:
"That means you don't believe there are two sexes in the species with corresponding genitalia for sexual intercourse. All you do is say no-one denies it and then say its complete rubbish."
This was you telling lies about what I do and do not believe and what I have posted. It is quite clearly referring to my position not yours, and it is also quite clearly dishonest and inaccurate. In short, you lied. That is why I responded "Don't lie"

Dont lie, your response was below the quotation you posted of what I wrote.

True, but so what?

So one sex acts are error.

None of this rambling has any relevance to morality.

so you claim, but I claim otherwise.

Walking uses two feet, hopping uses one foot. Hopping is not immoral.

Uh? A man can walk without a woman, but a man cant have sexual intercourse without a woman.

On the contrary, this is the bit of your position that I do not disagree with. It is ponderously expressed, but all you are saying here is that reproduction requires two sexes, homosexual activity involves only one sex, therefore homosexuality does not use reproductive anatomy nor does reproduction result from it.

Dont lie, that is neither what I have said nor what I am saying. Re-read what I posted and respond.

[brightmorningstar]

Nope, I am saying that the law is a good law, fairly applied.

The law with Asher's has been criticised as wrong by prominent gay activists as well as most other people. That is the reason your position is extremist and intolerant. You have merely offered your opinion.

[brightmorningstar]

it's not reality, it's just your somewhat twisted view of reality.

No its your edit view of reality as my position is that there are two sexes in the species with corresponding genitalia for sexual intercourse. .. so not the one sex of same sex acts. One sex couplings have neither the two sexes that exist for sexual intercourse, nor the corresponding anatomy, nor the consequent reproductive potential.

[Tolpuddlematyr]

Dont lie, your response was below the quotation you posted of what I wrote.

Here it is, sunshine.


Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
That means you don't believe there are two sexes in the species with corresponding genitalia for sexual intercourse. All you do is say no-one denies it and then say its complete rubbish.
You cant have it both ways.



My response: "Don't lie, it means nothing of the sort. No answer from you on the rest of my post, so a pretty sorry effort by you."

Try looking back at what is on record instead of relying on your appalling memory and your total inability to encompass reality

Dont lie, that is neither what I have said nor what I am saying. Re-read what I posted and respond.

In what way is my paraphrase inaccurate? Your phraseology is clumsy so perhaps you can read what I have said and correct it as necessary. Here it is again. What about this do you not agree with?

"On the contrary, this is the bit of your position that I do not disagree with. It is ponderously expressed, but all you are saying here is that reproduction requires two sexes, homosexual activity involves only one sex, therefore homosexuality does not use reproductive anatomy nor does reproduction result from it."

[CARM Admin]

This thread Part Six now closed, please post to Part Seven here:

http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/sec...-homosexuality