Bill Snedden

Ummm....no. Animals appear to lack the mental capacity to form consent. Even if they in fact did, they don't appear able to communicate their desires. At any rate, would you make the same argument for a mentally defective or deficient human being? Of course not, and that exposes the flaw in your position.

You imply a moral judgement where none exists. Repulsion or disgust do not necessarily have at their base a moral element. A child (or many others for that matter) might likewise find coprophagy repulsive. Does this also mean that it's immoral? I happen to find okra repulsive. Does this mean my mother-in-law is a moral degenerate because she enjoys it?

Finding the obvious flaws in your moral schema doesn't require rationalization, just a healthy dose of rationality.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

yguy

personal attack belatedly deleted.

winstonjen

If consent is unimportant, why not legalise rape? Surely consent is one of the most important criteria of deciding the morality of an action.

Mech Bliss

Why are you trying to be such a jerk?

Because you cannot think rationally or counter the arguments presented in a less-than-childlike (i.e. mature) fashion, you just irrationally lash out?

Is that consistent with "Christian" behavior, or even consistent with the rules of conduct for this forum?

Unbelievable...

Dominus Paradoxum

How very Christian of you. Is it just me, or didn't Jesus say something about loving thine enimies, and that those who call his brother a fool will be liable to hell-fire?

Incidentally, yguy, all this talk about "rationalization" is nothing but ad hominem combined with argumentum ad logicam. Saying that the other side is raitionalizing is a rhetorical trick you use so that you won't have to adress any of the points raised. To argue that something is immoral simply because it disgusts you is a non-sequitur.

yguy

So do watermelons. Is having sex with a watermelon then immoral on the grounds that it can't give consent?

If animals can't give consent, neither can they withhold it. Why, then, is it presumed that consent is an issue?

That would only be a flaw in my position if there were some reason to consider animals as being on a spiritual par with humans. We kill and eat animals without their consent, don't we? How then is the rape of an animal a worse crime than killing and eating it?

No, but the sight of something immoral produces inward revulsion to some degree in one who witnesses it, assuming he has not been suckered into seeing it as benign.

yguy

I'm not a Christian. Thought I told you that.

Guess that means I'm in big trouble, huh?

The points raised have illustrated that my opponents' logic leads inexorably to conclusions which are, to be charitable, patently insane.

I have not argued that anything is immoral because it disgusts me.

Mech Bliss

"I have not argued that anything is immoral because it disgusts me."

Then why do you simply state that it is "obvious" that homosexuality is immoral when you cannot provide any semblance of justification and instead resort to ad hominem attacks?

Quit the game already.

Dominus Paradoxum

Not in any thread that I've read. What are you then?

yelyos

Simply put, the question that I have of you is:

What quality makes homosexuality immoral?

You still haven't answered that question, the BASIC question that you should have stated FIRST before making arguments.