No such thing as a "gay gene"

[Seraph]

Keeping in line with my earlier comparison, that is essentially the same as saying "it is not depraved to be left handed, only to write with your left hand".

I'd love to hear the rationale behind that!

Homosexual love (or " homosexual acts") is akin to writing with your left hand, being "left handed" is akin to being homosexual in the comparison. Homosexuality has the same level of free will and volition involved (whether it has a specific gene linked to it or not) as one being left handed. One would be hard pressed to find someone who argues that left handed acts are evil, because they hurt no one. Homosexuality is no different. No unwilling victims are involved when homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it.

[RickD]

Keeping in line with my earlier comparison, that is essentially the same as saying "it is not depraved to be left handed, only to write with your left hand".

I'd love to hear the rationale behind that!

Homosexual love (or " homosexual acts") is akin to writing with your left hand, being "left handed" is akin to being homosexual in the comparison. Homosexuality has the same level of free will and volition involved (whether it has a specific gene linked to it or not) as one being left handed. One would be hard pressed to find someone who argues that left handed acts are evil, because they hurt no one. Homosexuality is no different. No unwilling victims are involved when homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it.

You're saying that there are never any victims when two homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it?

[Seraph]

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
You're saying that there are never any victims when two homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it?

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

All parties involved?

I'm not sure what that means. I thought we were talking about two consenting adults?

With two consenting adults, you can't think of any situation that there would be an unwilling victim? And btw, the same example I'm thinking of, would also hold true for two consenting adults who are opposite sex.

[PaulSacramento]

Keeping in line with my earlier comparison, that is essentially the same as saying "it is not depraved to be left handed, only to write with your left hand".

I see you know nothing or morals and ethics.
Beyond that, you know very little about the science of biology.

[PaulSacramento]

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

Define consent.
Define immoral.

[PaulSacramento]

FYI, about right/left handedness:

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/handedness

[Seraph]

Keeping in line with my earlier comparison, that is essentially the same as saying "it is not depraved to be left handed, only to write with your left hand".

I see you know nothing or morals and ethics.
Beyond that, you know very little about the science of biology.

I guess you don't feel the need to elaborate beyond that? In what way have I shown a lack of knowledge of morals or biology?

Define consent.
Define immoral.

Im pretty sure its hard to misinterpret what consent means. If the people involved are willingly participating in the action in question, that is consent. Pretty straightforward.

As for morality, Im talking largely from a secular ethics perspective. What is moral is what results in the most wellbeing or happiness for humankind, and what is immoral is that which inflicts suffering on a victim or victims. As a Christian Im sure you have a different standard of what makes something moral, but that's my own standard.

[Seraph]

RickD wrote:
You're saying that there are never any victims when two homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it?

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

All parties involved?

I'm not sure what that means. I thought we were talking about two consenting adults?

With two consenting adults, you can't think of any situation that there would be an unwilling victim? And btw, the same example I'm thinking of, would also hold true for two consenting adults who are opposite sex.

Im not sure what it is you're thinking of, with STDs I mentioned that STDs are possible in the case of either homosexuals or heterosexuals. If youre thinking of rape or something in your case of having an unwilling victim, that's not possible if both people are consenting.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
You're saying that there are never any victims when two homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it?

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

All parties involved?

I'm not sure what that means. I thought we were talking about two consenting adults?

With two consenting adults, you can't think of any situation that there would be an unwilling victim? And btw, the same example I'm thinking of, would also hold true for two consenting adults who are opposite sex.

Im not sure what it is you're thinking of, with STDs I mentioned that STDs are possible in the case of either homosexuals or heterosexuals. If youre thinking of rape or something in your case of having an unwilling victim, that's not possible if both people are consenting.

What about a man that is married with children, who falls in love with another man, tells his wife he's gay, and leaves her and the children, to be with the man?

Still no victims?

[PaulSacramento]

Im pretty sure its hard to misinterpret what consent means. If the people involved are willingly participating in the action in question, that is consent. Pretty straightforward

.
Yeah, that's a nice objective definition that won't cause any issues...* cough age*, *cough mental state*, etc

As for morality, Im talking largely from a secular ethics perspective. What is moral is what results in the most wellbeing or happiness for humankind, and what is immoral is that which inflicts suffering on a victim or victims. As a Christian Im sure you have a different standard of what makes something moral, but that's my own standard.

Who decides what is "well being" for "human kind"?
By the way, based on "well being for humankind", homosexuality would, obviously, not be good.
Neither from a biological standpoint OR a social one.

[Seraph]

RickD wrote:
You're saying that there are never any victims when two homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it?

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

All parties involved?

I'm not sure what that means. I thought we were talking about two consenting adults?

With two consenting adults, you can't think of any situation that there would be an unwilling victim? And btw, the same example I'm thinking of, would also hold true for two consenting adults who are opposite sex.

Im not sure what it is you're thinking of, with STDs I mentioned that STDs are possible in the case of either homosexuals or heterosexuals. If youre thinking of rape or something in your case of having an unwilling victim, that's not possible if both people are consenting.

What about a man that is married with children, who falls in love with another man, tells his wife he's gay, and leaves her and the children, to be with the man?

Still no victims?

Oh there are victims in that case. In that situation, the wise thing would've been better for the gay man to never marry the woman in the first place. If he were honest with himself in the first place, he wouldve been in a relationship with the man from the start and none of that would've happened. Thats an argument FOR gays living honestly, not against it.

[Seraph]

Yeah, that's a nice objective definition that won't cause any issues...* cough age*, *cough mental state*, etc

Okay? I definitely agree that children cannot give consent because of their mental and sexual immaturity. I never argued for pedophilia in the slightest sense. Homosexuality and pedophilia are separate issues entirely.

Who decides what is "well being" for "human kind"?
By the way, based on "well being for humankind", homosexuality would, obviously, not be good.
Neither from a biological standpoint OR a social one.

I clearly meant good for the individual, not good for the reproduction of the human species. I already gave my justification for what determines something to be good in my opinion, that which results in the greatest wellbeing for the greatest amount of individuals. Theres no "who" involved or necessary.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
You're saying that there are never any victims when two homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it?

As long as it is consensual for all parties involved, thats correct.

You could point to certain STDs associated with homosexuality, but all sex carries the risk of various STDs, regardless of orientation. The mere presence of risk does not in itself make something immoral.

All parties involved?

I'm not sure what that means. I thought we were talking about two consenting adults?

With two consenting adults, you can't think of any situation that there would be an unwilling victim? And btw, the same example I'm thinking of, would also hold true for two consenting adults who are opposite sex.

Im not sure what it is you're thinking of, with STDs I mentioned that STDs are possible in the case of either homosexuals or heterosexuals. If youre thinking of rape or something in your case of having an unwilling victim, that's not possible if both people are consenting.

What about a man that is married with children, who falls in love with another man, tells his wife he's gay, and leaves her and the children, to be with the man?

Still no victims?

Oh there are victims in that case. In that situation, the wise thing would've been better for the gay man to never marry the woman in the first place. If he were honest with himself in the first place, he wouldve been in a relationship with the man from the start and none of that would've happened. Thats an argument FOR gays living honestly, not against it.

So, you'd agree that your comparison with left handedness fails then, correct?

Homosexual love (or " homosexual acts") is akin to writing with your left hand, being "left handed" is akin to being homosexual in the comparison. Homosexuality has the same level of free will and volition involved (whether it has a specific gene linked to it or not) as one being left handed. One would be hard pressed to find someone who argues that left handed acts are evil, because they hurt no one. Homosexuality is no different. No unwilling victims are involved when homosexuals fall in love with each other and act upon it.

[Seraph]

No, why would I? How'd you show that it fails?