The Priest and the Atheist

[zoegirl]

Regardless, he never addressed Jac's main point which wasn't about debating the rightness or wrongness of homsexuality but rather whether or not one COULD debate the rightness or wrongness.

The debate is still about whther morality is simply a preference. Wayne bases his morality based on his preferences. But why are his prerefences any more right than anothers? He can say that it's because he can place himself in another person;s place and realize that they wouldn't liek it,but so what? Since when would empathy and perspective be th justification for stifling another persons preferences for an action?

[waynepii]

So you agree with me that we really can't say whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Since we don't know for sure that it's "wrong" and it doesn't affect anybody other than the (assumedly consenting) participants, why the big furor about letting people of the same gender get married if they wish.

Wayne... I wouldn't say that homosexuality isn't exactly harmless. It does affect others (and the two involved) as the statistics show...

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... _Lifestyle

The health risks are more properly attributable to the sexual practice rather than who does it. Since the practice is not limited to homosexuals by can be and is engaged in by some heterosexual couples as well.

[waynepii]

Regardless, he never addressed Jac's main point which wasn't about debating the rightness or wrongness of homsexuality but rather whether or not one COULD debate the rightness or wrongness.

The debate is still about whther morality is simply a preference. Wayne bases his morality based on his preferences. But why are his prerefences any more right than anothers? He can say that it's because he can place himself in another person;s place and realize that they wouldn't liek it,but so what? Since when would empathy and perspective be th justification for stifling another persons preferences for an action?

As Jac so eloquently explained, objective morality (I prefer "absolute morality") is only possible IF God exists AND IF He provides the laws to be used. Obviously, both of these issues are in doubt. There cannot be an absolute morality unless and until God reveals His existence in a manner that is not subject to doubt or misinterpretation and until He provides a set of all-inclusive, clear, and unambiguous laws by which He intends us to live.

Lacking this absolute moral compass, society must rely on a subjective moral compass. Being subjective, this moral compass will tend to "drift' over time and will tend to mirror the collective ethics and prejudices of the society. Each individual has a personal moral compass which may vary from society's compass. An individual should be free to live by his or her personal compass so long as doing does not adversely affect others or society as a whole.

God could easily resolve all this by revealing Himself in a manner that would leave no doubt of His existence and giving us His set of laws as described above.

[Jac3510]

Your weight is measured by a scale - its calibration and accuracy can be checked and calibrated using a second scale or special equipment and standard weights.

The identity of the first president can be determined by consulting a history book - its accuracy can be verified by consulting other documents from independent sources.

The accuracy of the sum of 2+2 can be verified by consulting arithmetic textbooks or by experimentation.

Correct. Now note: all of the information comes from OUTSIDE the instrument. That is, the information is NOT subjective. It is OBJECTIVE.

Same with morality.

How do we assess the accuracy of your "mystery" instrument?

That's an epitemological question, which is unrelated to my claim. There is no need to move on to that debate until you understand this one.

So you agree with me that we really can't say whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Since we don't know for sure that it's "wrong" and it doesn't affect anybody other than the (assumedly consenting) participants, why the big furor about letting people of the same gender get married if they wish.

No, I don't agree. You, again, are appealing to epistemology when I am talking about ontology. Because I know that morality is objective, it's rather easy for me to see the problem with homosexuality. But until you get my basic point--which is the ONLY point I've ever tried to make with you--then any other attempt at discussion on this issue with you is pointless.

You can't understand alegebra until you understand arithmetic. You can't understand moral epistemology until you understand moral ontology.

As Jac so eloquently explained, objective morality (I prefer "absolute morality") is only possible IF God exists AND IF He provides the laws to be used. Obviously, both of these issues are in doubt. There cannot be an absolute morality unless and until God reveals His existence in a manner that is not subject to doubt or misinterpretation and until He provides a set of all-inclusive, clear, and unambiguous laws by which He intends us to live.

Problem #1: There is a difference in moral absolutism and moral objectivity. The two words do NOT mean the same thing.
Problem #2: You don't have to pove God exists to prove morality is objective. If morality is objective, it is a simple matter of observation (it doens't need to be proven--that's what 'objective' is). The moral objectivity--NOT ABSOLUTISM--proves God's existence, but that moves us into an entirely different argument.
Problem #3: The existence of God isn't in doubt anymore than your own existence is in doubt. If you doubt God's existence, it' an educational problem on your part. You knowledge, or lack thereof, has no bearing on reality.

This is a consistent problem you keep having. Let me help you understand a very basic philosophical point:

Epistemology does not determine ontology.

Let me unpack that a bit for you. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It deals with what we know and how we know rather than what is. Ontology is the study of what is, regardless of whether we know about it or not. Ontology asks the question, "What is reality?" Epistemology asks the question, "How do I know reality?"

Notice that epistemology presupposes ontology. You can't ask how you know reality if you don't first know what reality fundamentally IS. Thus, in order to even begin to have an epistemological debate, you first must get your ontology straigth (which is what I've been trying to help you do in this thread).

Now -- back to our axiom. It is self-evident that what I know about reality has no bearing that the way reality is. It is the other way around. The way reality is determines my knowledge about it. This is the reason we can be wrong about things. In fact, what we actually mean when we say we are "wrong" is that our knowledge does not correspond with reality.

In that case, your doubts about God (or the objectivity of morality)--that epistemological problem YOU have--has absolutely NO bearing on God's existence or morality objectivity or any other ontological fact. And as long as you insist on having an epistemological debate (But how do we know God exists/but how do you know right from wrong?) you'll never get any further than skepticism. You'll just be wrong about reality, which frankly, is your problem, not mine.

Lacking this absolute moral compass, society must rely on a subjective moral compass. Being subjective, this moral compass will tend to "drift' over time and will tend to mirror the collective ethics and prejudices of the society. Each individual has a personal moral compass which may vary from society's compass. An individual should be free to live by his or her personal compass so long as doing does not adversely affect others or society as a whole.

You are making an epistemological claim that presupposes an ontological claim with which I disagree. In fact, considering that this is the very issue under discussion, your argument is a good old fashioned pititio principii--that is, it begs the question, or more commonly, it is a circular argument. What you are doing is assuming moral relativity (ontology) which leads to moral subjectivism (epistemology), and based on the subjective nature of morality, you then use that to prove moral relativity.

But further, it is self defeating. Notice, again, your last statement:

"An individual should be free to live . . ."

You are making a MORAL claim here, Wayne. But is that moral claim relative, also? Who says an individual SHOULD BE free? You? What if I disagree. What if I say an individual should NOT be free to live under his moral compass, but rather by mine. Would you say I am wrong? If morality is subjective, you can't, because there is no such thing as right or wrong. And if you take that line of thought, then you can't say that an individual SHOULD BE free to live according to his or her own moral compass, either, because that also assumes right/wrong and thus is disqualified by your relativism.

This is what happens to relativists. They assert it, and then disprove themselves by saying others are morally bound to let people live according to their own moral standards. As such, the primary argument kills itself. Self-defeating, my friend.

God could easily resolve all this by revealing Himself in a manner that would leave no doubt of His existence and giving us His set of laws as described above.

He has revealed Himself in a manner that leaves no doubt. There is sufficient evidence to require belief in an intellectually honest person. We are dealing with one here. Morality, as you demonstrated above, is objective. There are certain things that we ought to do, and the very fact that we can debate on what we ought to do proves that.

You think that by showing my moral compass is different from yours, you disprove objectivity. But, in fact, in proving your point, you prove mine. If I am WRONG in saying a person should be forced to live by my morality, that means some other answer is RIGHT. We are not talking about preferences. We are talking about a correct vs. incorrect way to view the world. We are saying that reality is one way, and I am mistaken in the way I view it. But if morality is part of reality in such a way that we can be wrong if we view it incorrectly, then morality, by definition, becomes objective. But if morality is objective, then God exists.

This is the great flaw with all modern atheist arguments against God. They say God "ought not" do this or that, or He "ought" to do this or that. "God ought to reveal Himself more clearly." "God ought to stop suffering." "God ought not be so petty." They conclude from the fact that God does not meet these standards that He does not exist. But those standards themselves cannot exist if God doesn't exist, and thus the standards themselves are self-refuting. Your arguments "prove too much," as it is said. For if you think you prove God does not exist, you also prove the very standards by which you disproved God are themselves not standards at all, but mere preferences. There is no right. There is no wrong. There is no love, no hate, no beauty, no ugliness. The sunset isn't truly beautiful, and the decaying corpse of a tortured child is not truly ugly. Beauty and ugly would exist as no more than mere preferences on the level of "I like vanilla ice cream." It is not really wrong to deny people their civil rights, and it isn't right to let people be free.

That's the point I want you to see, Wayne.

If no God exists, then EVERYTHING is relative. There is NO SUCH THING as beauty, ugliness, right, or wrong. You can't eat your cake and have it, too, my friend. You can't deny (or, for that matter, doubt) God's existence and continue to assert that there are such things as truth and beauty. This is the atheist's word: a colorless mash of skepticism and uncertainty lacking any possibility of real love or beauty. It's cold and dead, nothing more. Oh, sure, you can BEHAVE as if that isn't the case, but you are only deceiving yourself. You are just being intellectually dishonest--cowardice, in fact, is a good word for it. Afraid to recognize the implications of position, you choose to close your eyes to reality and live in a dream world. You live as if there is a God while you deny it. You are at odds with yourself.

Atheism truly is a foolish, self-contradictory position.

[jlay]

Jac, would it be right to say, philisophically speaking, that if God doesn't exist, then "opinion" is is just a delusion? A trick of the mind.

[Jac3510]

I think so, jlay, and probably for the same reasons you are already thinking. If there is no God, then there is no personal and transcendent cause of the universe. As such, the universe would have somehow been brought into existence by non-rational laws. Everything it it would be governed by non-rational laws. Everything, which includes our thoughts.

The end result is that the atheist is forced to embrace some sort of determinism. Whether hard or soft or any of the other variations, the end result is the same. Everything we say, think, and do is determined by external forces. We are not self-causing agents for anything, including our ideas. As such, there can be no preferences or ideas or beliefs. This is all just a giant machine, and we're just cogs in it dutifully following the laws of physics.

The only way for there to be rational thought (and thus, opinion) in the universe is if there is a Transcendent Mind behind it all.

[jlay]

I just wonder if we can convince someone through philisophical argument. When I read your argument, I am saying, "yes, that is so obvious. How could someone not see it?"

But the bible warns us of those who are blinded and can not see.

For example:

There cannot be (absolute statment) an absolute morality unless and until God reveals His existence in a manner that is not subject to doubt or misinterpretation and until He provides a set of all-inclusive, clear, and unambiguous laws by which He intends us to live.

This is saying God cannot exist unless he meets your criteria. That is, Wayne prefers a god to bow to his standards of proof. Who is god in that relationship? And why should god comply with his dictates?
And who is to think that he would submit to live by His laws if they where given in a way that complies with his criteria. That is like a treasure hunter saying, "there is no treasure. If there were a treasure, it would not be hidden. It would be obvious to everyone. Therefore there is no point in looking, because treasure is not hidden."

The bible teaches that we can KNOW God. That if we seek Him we will find Him. Having found Him we can both confirm that this is testable and verifiable. To find Him, we must comply with His will, and the process that He has put in place.
Wayne is suggesting that he can only find God if God complies to his will. How can one be considered sincere when they say they are seeking to know God, but refuse to follow anyting but their own selfish notions of who they think God should be. "If I find anything to the contrary I can exclude that because it doesn't fit my subjective ideas of what I think a god should be like." That is like setting off on a treasure hunt, but refusing to look at the map and compass, because you don't think they are valid guides. Instead you pick up a walky talkie and think, if the treasure is there it will speak to me through this device, and give me the exact coordinates.

I just find it very frustrating that people can claim there is no proof of God based on criteria they have fabricated in their own minds. I don't see how you can convince someone that morality is objective, when they arrogantly see their own view of morality as the highest form.

Example:

An individual should be free to live by his or her personal compass so long as doing does not adversely affect others or society as a whole.

Isnt' that establishing an absolute moral standard???

[Jac3510]

I just wonder if we can convince someone through philisophical argument. When I read your argument, I am saying, "yes, that is so obvious. How could someone not see it?"

But the bible warns us of those who are blinded and can not see.

I believe that some people can be convinced by philosophical argument. At the end of the day, they have to receive the Gospel, but there are certain people who are intellectually minded enough that they are willing to put aside their own biases to look at the evidence.

Not many, though, are like that in our age. Postmodernism has taken its toll.

This is saying God cannot exist unless he meets your criteria. That is, Wayne prefers a god to bow to his standards of proof. Who is god in that relationship? And why should god comply with his dictates?
And who is to think that he would submit to live by His laws if they where given in a way that complies with his criteria. That is like a treasure hunter saying, "there is no treasure. If there were a treasure, it would not be hidden. It would be obvious to everyone. Therefore there is no point in looking, because treasure is not hidden."

The bible teaches that we can KNOW God. That if we seek Him we will find Him. Having found Him we can both confirm that this is testable and verifiable. To find Him, we must comply with His will, and the process that He has put in place.
Wayne is suggesting that he can only find God if God complies to his will. How can one be considered sincere when they say they are seeking to know God, but refuse to follow anyting but their own selfish notions of who they think God should be. "If I find anything to the contrary I can exclude that because it doesn't fit my subjective ideas of what I think a god should be like." That is like setting off on a treasure hunt, but refusing to look at the map and compass, because you don't think they are valid guides. Instead you pick up a walky talkie and think, if the treasure is there it will speak to me through this device, and give me the exact coordinates.

I just find it very frustrating that people can claim there is no proof of God based on criteria they have fabricated in their own minds. I don't see how you can convince someone that morality is objective, when they arrogantly see their own view of morality as the highest form.

This is the heart of the problem for most people. For many, disbelief is a matter of rebellion. I would say there are two broad types of unbelievers:

1. Ignorant, but otherwise open, unbelievers. These people don't believe because they haven't been given a reason. They have not set their wills against God.
2. Rebellious unbelievers. These people can't be reached with anything, be it Scripture or argument. They have hardened their own hearts against God for the simple reason that they want to be their own god. Their arguments are defense mechanisms for their disbelief and nothing more.

You could say that the first group has no belief, whereas the second group has come to believe in non-belief. However, there is no rational reason not to believe (any intellectually honest philosopher will quickly admit that). The only reasons, then, for active disbelief irrational and emotional. Unfortunately, those are very powerful forces.

Isnt' that establishing an absolute moral standard???

Yessir, it is, which is why his position is self-contradictory.

In any case, don't let yourself get the idea that the majority of people don't believe out of pure rebellion. Those are out there, but most people are part of the uneducated masses ( ). They just believe what their friends or college professors tell them to believe. They just want to fit in and have never taken the time to do the hard work of thinking about these issues. All it takes is a little reasoning with them, and when they realize there is an entire world they've not considered, the ground becomes very fertile for the gospel.

[Gman]

So you agree with me that we really can't say whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Since we don't know for sure that it's "wrong" and it doesn't affect anybody other than the (assumedly consenting) participants, why the big furor about letting people of the same gender get married if they wish.

Wayne... I wouldn't say that homosexuality isn't exactly harmless. It does affect others (and the two involved) as the statistics show...

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... _Lifestyle

The health risks are more properly attributable to the sexual practice rather than who does it. Since the practice is not limited to homosexuals by can be and is engaged in by some heterosexual couples as well.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this wayne... By default, these type of homosexual practices are going to be performed on a much higher percentage than heterosexuals. Technically any other practice than sex between a man woman is going to be harmful. The body simply wasn't made for perverted acts...

[jlay]

In any case, don't let yourself get the idea that the majority of people don't believe out of pure rebellion.

Couldn't we distinquish willfull rebellion? All sin is a rejection of what light God has given us. I heard Adrian Rogers say, light rejected increases darkness. Light accepted brings more light.

I'm very interested in learning more about philosophy, although I want to proceed with caution in regards to using as an evangelism tool. Philosophy has built up my faith, more so than having a pivotal role or any role in my initial conversion.

The intellect is not the place of the conscience. All the philosophy in the world had little importance when I was faced with my sin against my God. I'm sure many Christians can testify about being on the side of unbelief. I know Atheists would like to come across as confident, but I know too many former Atheist to believe that to be true. I know the battle that wages within a man, when he is trying to deny God exist. I am certain there are many who say, "sure there's a God," but just as quickly reject any notion of following Him, because they don't see their sin as utterly sinful. That why it is ridiculous for Wayne to assert that he would obey God if he was simply at Sinai to witness the glory of God. Is this not why Atheists don't want to have philisophical discussion but instead want to argue the character of God. "God should, God shouldn't, etc."

I can almost hear Agrippa, "Almost thou persuadest me." In other words, great argument, so what?

[waynepii]

Problem #1: There is a difference in moral absolutism and moral objectivity. The two words do NOT mean the same thing.

So what DO they mean?

Problem #2: You don't have to pove God exists to prove morality is objective. If morality is objective, it is a simple matter of observation (it doens't need to be proven--that's what 'objective' is). The moral objectivity--NOT ABSOLUTISM--proves God's existence, but that moves us into an entirely different argument.

So how do you prove morality is objective? What is the "simple observation"?

Problem #3: The existence of God isn't in doubt anymore than your own existence is in doubt. If you doubt God's existence, it' an educational problem on your part. You knowledge, or lack thereof, has no bearing on reality.

Of course, my belief or non-belief in any thing has no bearing at all on whether that thing actually exists or not. I don't happen to believe that there's a monster living in Loch Ness, but I am open to evidence of its existence.

I pretty much have been asking for evidence of God's existence and His involvement in our lives since I came here. That IS, after all, what this site purports to provide. The "evidence" provided seems thin and/or suspect. For instance, the Biblical prophecies that are "proven" fulfilled could easily have been written AFTER the "prophesied" event occurred.

Notice that epistemology presupposes ontology. You can't ask how you know reality if you don't first know what reality fundamentally IS.

So what IS reality?

In that case, your doubts about God (or the objectivity of morality)--that epistemological problem YOU have--has absolutely NO bearing on God's existence or morality objectivity or any other ontological fact. And as long as you insist on having an epistemological debate (But how do we know God exists/but how do you know right from wrong?) you'll never get any further than skepticism. You'll just be wrong about reality, which frankly, is your problem, not mine.

So you are bailing out?

I don't insist on having an epistemological debate. I DO insist on getting answers that are clear and understandable.

Lacking this absolute moral compass, society must rely on a subjective moral compass. Being subjective, this moral compass will tend to "drift' over time and will tend to mirror the collective ethics and prejudices of the society. Each individual has a personal moral compass which may vary from society's compass. An individual should be free to live by his or her personal compass so long as doing does not adversely affect others or society as a whole.

You are making an epistemological claim that presupposes an ontological claim with which I disagree. In fact, considering that this is the very issue under discussion, your argument is a good old fashioned pititio principii--that is, it begs the question, or more commonly, it is a circular argument. What you are doing is assuming moral relativity (ontology) which leads to moral subjectivism (epistemology), and based on the subjective nature of morality, you then use that to prove moral relativity.

There is nothing "circular" about it. It is actually a fairly straightforward statement describing my view. To restate - Without an absolute "morals" authority, morality MUST be relative to the current society. Given the changes in acceptable behavior (aka "morality") thru recorded history, I fail to see ANY signs of a non-relative moral authority.

But further, it is self defeating. Notice, again, your last statement:

"An individual should be free to live . . ."

You are making a MORAL claim here, Wayne. But is that moral claim relative, also? Who says an individual SHOULD BE free? You? What if I disagree. What if I say an individual should NOT be free to live under his moral compass, but rather by mine. Would you say I am wrong? If morality is subjective, you can't, because there is no such thing as right or wrong. And if you take that line of thought, then you can't say that an individual SHOULD BE free to live according to his or her own moral compass, either, because that also assumes right/wrong and thus is disqualified by your relativism.

Please note my statement (emphasis added) ...

An individual should be free to live by his or her personal compass so long as doing does not adversely affect others or society as a whole.

The arbiter of whether "your" attempt to restrict another's moral compass has to be society - ie the courts.

This is what happens to relativists. They assert it, and then disprove themselves by saying others are morally bound to let people live according to their own moral standards. As such, the primary argument kills itself. Self-defeating, my friend.

Do you really think this argument carries any weight? It might with others who take The Bible literally and who believe God is an active participant in our day-to-day lives. I assure you, these arguments carry no weight even with those, such as myself, who believe in God but think He is fairly "laissez faire". I can't imagine an atheist or agnostic being persuaded in the least. You're preaching to the converted - at best.

[jlay]

I can't imagine an atheist or agnostic being persuaded in the least.

Funny, I feel the same way, but for different reasons.

For instance, the Biblical prophecies that are "proven" fulfilled could easily have been written AFTER the "prophesied" event occurred.

So, would you admit that if they were written prior to fulfillment that they would be convincing?

Wayne, many Christians like myself have had events that leave us with no excuse to wonder, "is God involved." However, these events, experiences and encounters, whatever you want to call them are not going to convince you. Even after my encounter I rebelled against what I KNEW to be true. So, I hate to say it, but a Mt. Sinai experience is not what you need to believe.

Could it be our nature that we build hedges around our minds. And just when someone climbs high enough to wave a glimpse of truth over the top, we simply raise the hedge. For example. Fulfilled prophecies are convincing, but we can always doubt the timing. Even though historically there is good evidence to confirm the time. Critics once tried to undermine the historical accuracy of the bible because it mentioned the Hittite nation. At that time there was no record of such a people, so critics held this up as evidence of the Bible's errancy. Guess what archaeologists later found? Clear evidence of the Hittite nation. Did they repent of disbelief. No. They just raised the hedge.

The Christian faith is full of converts who had built these hedges in their minds, and where in no different place than you are now. They demanded evidence. They would get a few questions answered but it was never enough. Each of them finally came to a point where they humbly opened their hearts and minds. I know, in your mind, you really think your mind is open. There is a verse in the bible that says, God resist the proud and gives grace to the humble. Now, I doubt you see your questions and objections as proud or closed minded, and I'm sure they are all not. But if you have determined in your will that you will not be convinced either by demanding signs and wonders, or by general stubborness, then you in fact have pride of the heart.
No fulfilled prophecy and no philosophical argument will convince you. You are a creature of will. And that will is yours to worship or surrender.

Since you mention morality, have you ever done anything that was against your conscience?

[waynepii]

But the bible warns us of those who are blinded and can not see.

For example:

There cannot be (absolute statment) an absolute morality unless and until God reveals His existence in a manner that is not subject to doubt or misinterpretation and until He provides a set of all-inclusive, clear, and unambiguous laws by which He intends us to live.


This is saying God cannot exist unless he meets your criteria.

That's not true, as I said in a prior post, whether I believe in the existence of ANY thing has no effect on the existence or non-existence of the thing.

That is, Wayne prefers a god to bow to his standards of proof. Who is god in that relationship? And why should god comply with his dictates?

No, Wayne expects ANY thing that he is to worship and obey to make its presence and its requirements known in a clear and unambiguous manner.

And who is to think that he would submit to live by His laws if they where given in a way that complies with his criteria. That is like a treasure hunter saying, "there is no treasure. If there were a treasure, it would not be hidden. It would be obvious to everyone. Therefore there is no point in looking, because treasure is not hidden."

A treasure is generally hidden. However, when found, its existence is unambiguous to everyone.

The bible teaches that we can KNOW God. That if we seek Him we will find Him. Having found Him we can both confirm that this is testable and verifiable. To find Him, we must comply with His will, and the process that He has put in place.

So how do those who haven't been exposed to The Bible find God?

Wayne is suggesting that he can only find God if God complies to his will.

Wayne is simply using the intellect, cautious skepticism, and common sense that God gave him.

How can one be considered sincere when they say they are seeking to know God, but refuse to follow anyting but their own selfish notions of who they think God should be. "If I find anything to the contrary I can exclude that because it doesn't fit my subjective ideas of what I think a god should be like." That is like setting off on a treasure hunt, but refusing to look at the map and compass, because you don't think they are valid guides. Instead you pick up a walky talkie and think, if the treasure is there it will speak to me through this device, and give me the exact coordinates.

I don't appreciate the name calling and putting words in my mouth. I am NOT looking to "find anything to the contrary", I'm looking for anything that supports your view.

I just find it very frustrating that people can claim there is no proof of God based on criteria they have fabricated in their own minds. I don't see how you can convince someone that morality is objective, when they arrogantly see their own view of morality as the highest form.

Now I'm arrogant.

I find it frustrating that people claim to have proof but won't divulge it so it can be understood.

[waynepii]

So you agree with me that we really can't say whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Since we don't know for sure that it's "wrong" and it doesn't affect anybody other than the (assumedly consenting) participants, why the big furor about letting people of the same gender get married if they wish.

Wayne... I wouldn't say that homosexuality isn't exactly harmless. It does affect others (and the two involved) as the statistics show...

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... _Lifestyle

The health risks are more properly attributable to the sexual practice rather than who does it. Since the practice is not limited to homosexuals by can be and is engaged in by some heterosexual couples as well.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this wayne... By default, these type of homosexual practices are going to be performed on a much higher percentage than heterosexuals. Technically any other practice than sex between a man woman is going to be harmful. The body simply wasn't made for perverted acts...

I agree that the "perverted" acts are risky for anyone who engages in them, whether heterosexual or homosexual. "Normal" sex isn't exactly without risk either. And of course, about 50% of homosexuals can't engage in the "perverted act" (lesbians).

But why discriminate against some of those who do engage in these acts?

[waynepii]

Since you mention morality, have you ever done anything that was against your conscience?

Of course. And regretted it after the fact because I realized it was the wrong thing to have done.