Gay Marriages

[loseyourname]

Your analogy is way off. We do understand it it is just not valid or comparable in this case. Look Adam, not to sound too redundant but "keep your day job." I mean if you cannot see what I was implying with my two cents of the share then refrain from critiquing what I said.

How about actually attempting a critique of what I said? If you claim the analogy is invalid, how is that the case? Did you not jump from the premise that homosexuality is a genetic flaw to the conclusion that it is immoral? Would that not imply that all genetic defects are immoral? If not, I'd like to know why not, because you have certainly not done a very good job of explaining yourself.

[loseyourname]

I do not care what Deviance is arguing, I was making a point based on the issue of moral or immoral, right or wrong, correct or incorrect. This is the nth time you seem to be avoiding it and now blaming me as bringing up the non-issue.

Look. When did I ever say that homosexuality is morally okay because of the fact that people engage in homosexual acts? You're refuting an argument that I never made. Please tell me where I'm supposed to go from there, because I'd like to know.

If you simply want to talk about right and wrong, fine. I've refuted every argument you've used in an attempt to show that homosexuality is immoral. Do you have another?

[Deviance]

How about actually attempting a critique of what I said? If you claim the analogy is invalid, how is that the case? Did you not jump from the premise that homosexuality is a genetic flaw to the conclusion that it is immoral? Would that not imply that all genetic defects are immoral? If not, I'd like to know why not, because you have certainly not done a very good job of explaining yourself.

In case we need to dumb it down to explain it: You compared this lifestyle to a racial issue. Racial discrimination has nothing to do with homosexuality. Physically impaired individuals do not fall in the same line as genetically altered people such as homosexuals. I do not know what more there is to say to that.

[Anonymouse]

You've refuted? Homosexuality is immoral because it is incorrect, that was the point. The only alternative is what I just said, which you dismiss because it doesn't seem comfortable for you. How is it incorrect? It serves no purpose other than perversion and self-gratification and hedonism.

[loseyourname]

No I didn't. I compared it to sickle-cell anemia, which is a genetic defect.

Does anyone in here understand the concept of an analogy? You said that because homosexuality is a genetic flaw (I'm guessing because it prevents them from breeding) it is morally wrong. That obviously means that all genetic flaws are morally wrong, which is an absurdity. Do you believe a man to be morally flawed because he suffers from sickle-cell anemia?

[Deviance]

It seems that a certain someone is debasing his whole arguments on his self-benefits. We are going in circles with this now.

[loseyourname]

How is it incorrect? It serves no purpose other than perversion and self-gratification and hedonism.

So you're saying that Dan's love for another man is less valid than your love for another woman? When he loves someone, it is only for self-gratification and hedonism, and when you love someone, it is for?

Do you consider oral and anal sex to be immoral? What about the drinking of alcohol or the smoking of marijuana? What purpose do these things serve other than gratification and hedonism?

[Deviance]

My argument was that because it is an error, it should be fixed not further encourage its practice. We already established and defined what homosexuality is. Again, my whole thesis was that it needs to be prevented in terms of fixing the problem, not advocating it just because it serves as self-satisfaction to a few people.

[Deviance]

So you're saying that Dan's love for another man is less valid than your love for another woman? When he loves someone, it is only for self-gratification and hedonism, and when you love someone, it is for?

Do you consider oral and anal sex to be immoral? What about the drinking of alcohol or the smoking of marijuana? What purpose do these things serve other than gratification and hedonism?

The demeanors of a flawed source can never be considered valid. That in and of itself is refutable. Smoking marijuana and engaging in such other superficially indulgent acts are not genetically defected. Homosexuality and inbreeding are, even though those two issue vary greatly.

[Anonymouse]

So you're saying that Dan's love for another man is less valid than your love for another woman? When he loves someone, it is only for self-gratification and hedonism, and when you love someone, it is for?

Do you consider oral and anal sex to be immoral? What about the drinking of alcohol or the smoking of marijuana? What purpose do these things serve other than gratification and hedonism?

You are implying moral relativism, that there are no correct and incorrect views, and it's "all relative". Again, ideas that are correct are correct because they work. Your desperate attempt at trying to bring alcohol to somehow make a case for homosexuality is silly and I find it funny. Why murder is wrong is because it is incorrect, it doesn't work, and why socialism failed is because it is wrong, it doesn't work, why homosexuality is incorrect, is because it is wrong, it doesn't work. This is what I meant earlier that atheism and agnosticism promote this sort of relativism and if this paradigm is allowed to continue it has severe consequences.