: : Biblical arguments aside, because they are irrefutable, why is homosexuality aberrant? Are all the other members of other species (from dogs to cats to all the other apes to goodness knows what other species from time immemorial) practicing this behaviour aberrant? Why? If procreation is the only ultimate goal for sexuality, then are condoms, masturbation, pills, diaphragms, sponges, spermicidal jellies, abstinence, the rhythm method, and wet dreams all aberrant practices? How about other non-sexual practices? Should we seek to procreate till there is no room left on this planet and not a single bite of food? Get real Stuart. Aberrance is in the eye of the beholder.: Problem is Kevin, I can't put the Bible aside. The Bible is what tells
: me I'm not an animal, free to do whatever I please. To accept your
: argument is to make man an animal and to make all morality relative. We
: disagree deeply on this issue. I believe in a fixed moral standard and
: you do not. There it is.
No, he probably believes in a fixed moral standard, I certainly do, and I find all anti-homosecxual arguments repugnant. Why is it necessary to subscribe to a 'religion" all or nothing? I still ahven't heard you answer this. My religion certainly doesn't preach this, though I won't speak for Christianity here, although tehre are many aspects of Chrsitianity particualrly Catholicism taht i deeply admire.
Although I accept a lot of Hindu theology I don't accept many Hidnu social prescriptions. I'm not stupid enogh to think that God ordained the caste system to teh founders of Hinduism, I have a higher opinion of my God and my religion tahn that. As a matter of fact I woudl consider it obscene to suggest that a loving God would install a caste system, anyone who believes taht, i think, cannot be truly religious. Obviosuly some of teh Hidnu sages either mistranslated or mdsiunderstood teh divine revelation, or just as liekly, chose to read tehir own prejudices into the holy books tehy were writing. I would cosndier it horribly intellectually dishonest if i were to accept teh caste system just because teh Law of Manu claims "God says so". To believ that is to insult God. My religion is a simple one, Love god and loev your neighbor. The caste system cannot be reconcield with taht. Therefore, the catse system cannot be a part of true Hinduism, regadrless of what some questionably tarnslated holy books and some prejudiced men may say.
I've criticized my own religion, not yours. I'm leaving that up to you. If you don't want to, fine. But consider this. If heterosexual sex vcan bind together 2 people, why not gay sex also? In taht case, why do you not allow love between gay men. POr do you disagree with the idea taht love is something sacred? which is whaT MOST RELIGIONS, including mine and yours, seem to say.
Religious tradition certainly can and shoudl play a role in justifying moral standards, but they CANNOT rpovide the ONLY basis. We shoudl be prepared to find sensible grpounds for defending oru moral standards, without recourse to religion. Reason cannot define mroal standards, but it can help to justify them- to "rationalize" them. Please explain to me why homosexuality is wrong. Please. Whom does it hurt?
Either the "no gay sex" rule has a RATIONAL BASIS or not. If so, please tell me. If not, you're in the position of having to argue that God is arbitrary and irrational and has tehse random prejudices taht you and i can't explain. please. Is taht what you think of God? I think that God is perfectly rational, therefore we shoudl be able to explain religious commands according to reason. I'll repeat: GOD IS NOT IRRATIONAL!
: Your position brings up too many unreconcilable conflicts.
: If I am an animal regarding sexual choice why can't I be an animal
: regarding meat in my diet?
No animal practices the kind of factory farming we do, also we eat more meat today tahn most of our forefathers ever did. taht is not "natural".
:Are we to pick Kevin's selected morality
: which allows us any form of sexual gratification but no dietary
: gratification?
Eating meat kills sentient beings, and I say taht as a non-vegetarian. Homosexuality harms no one. Hence the difference. There's a world of difference. I don't believe meat eating shoudl be illegal, but nro shoudl gay sex.
: If it is both legal and vogue to embrace homosexuality and meat eating
: remains legal and vastly popular why is your selective morality code
: not to be considered arrogant?
It's not "vastly popular". Ask the average Indian family whether tehy would like a hamburger right now.
: If the words aberrant and abnormal are offensive to you because it
: requires some sort of moral judgment, where do you draw the line
: between aberrant and normal? Sex with children? Animals?
I feel silly explaining this, since its eems so obvious, but here goes. It's called CONSENT. Sex with a child, a retarded person, a comatose person, a drunk person, an employee, an animal, etcetera is illegal for one good reason. Noen of tehse people are in a position to consent to sex, therefore sex with them is a form of rape. Sex between 2 cosnenting adult men is not.
:
Where do you
: draw that line?
See above.
:Write me back and tell me that you don't draw it so I
: can again illustrate my point. I believe in fixed standards and you
: don't.
Evidence please? Why do you isnist on telling us all what KJevin thinks? let kevin speak for kevin.
: But the world needs fixed standards Kevin. Can't you see that the
: constant flux of preferred and popular morality only results in chaos
: as strong opinions clash?
Sounds like the Social Darwinist capitalism taht you have espoused on occasion. Speaking as a socialist....
: Just so you don't think I skirted your point in your post, I find all
: the things you listed acceptable in the context of a loving,
: heterosexual marriage. Biblically, sex is gift from God which gives a
: man and woman a very inimate way to grow into one being. Within a
: committed relationship, sex serves to unify.
So why the hell can't homosexuals have a committed relationship?
: Stuart Gort
: Stuart Gort
None.
