Bill Snedden

But of course, it's simply self-evident. You're inability to see what's as plain as the nose on your face only reinforces the diagnosis of moral insanity. Sorry.

That wouldn't be a problem except that you refuse to discuss the basis of your moral schema. Unless you're prepared to do so, people will most likely realize that you have nothing useful to bring to the discussion and will indeed stop responding to you.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

yguy

Thank you for your tacit admission that you don't know why murder is wrong. Next time you ask anyone to demonstrate why they believe anything in particular is morally wrong, remember that - if you dare.

Bill Snedden

Actually, between the two of us, I am the one who knows why murder is wrong. You only feel that it is wrong. Quite a different thing, altogether.

Bill Snedden

Perhaps, but it isn't half as difficult as you seem to be bent on making it...

Would it be possible for you to explain simply and clearly why you believe homosexuality, that is, sexual contact between two persons of the same sex, immoral? That is, after all, the topic of this thread.

Not why certain sexual acts might be immoral, but homosexuality itself. Not why some homosexuals themselves might sometimes act immorally, but homosexuality itself.

If there is a standard, or value by which you arrive at this determination, that would be exceedingly helpful. As it is, I simply can't make heads or tails of whatever your actual position might be.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

yguy

Hey, don't hold back dude. Clue me in...

...and I'll show you that you don't have the foggiest idea why you believe it. Stand your intellectual ground for a minute and I'll deck you. Bank on it.

dk

I’ve already explained and shown that homosexuality is a misunderstood concept that lacks a rational, logical and necessary bases in ethics. I suspect you have a problem with my explanation that for some unspoken reason you find difficult to express. I have planted morality in the principles of causation that examine (explain how) what people become as a result of actions committed freely by an act of will. This assumes by necessity (self evident) that people aspire to happiness. In causal terms people are the proper…
“subject” of ethics,
“means” being the efficient cause in, of and by which happiness serves as an appropriate object or
“ends” to which all people aspire.
As a practical matter ethics directs (explains how, or means) human will (subject) towards objects (ends) suitable to human nature, and explains to people how happiness becomes possible. Ethics in the most practical understandable terms prescribes norms that show how people order their actions by an act of will to make happiness possible. Alas while ethics is necessary, it is not necessarily sufficient to make people happy.

I don’t care what underlying model, theory, system or psycho babble science employs to construct ethical norms. Ethics can only succeed by showing people how to make happiness possible with normative rules. Ethics fails when it becomes inaccessible. The great failing of post modernist ethics is the confusion it generates that makes “what I ought to do?” a meaningless question.

Dr Rick

That might have something to do with your "explanation" being nothing more than a disconnected series of bizzare, nonsensical claims about "forms" and stuff.

Unfortunately, your irrational claim that "homosexuality is a misunderstood concept that lacks a rational, logical and necessary bases in ethics" could just as easily be asserted about heterosexuality, trees, and music.

dk

No, most people understand...
The nuclear family is the basis of all living civilizations.
a) families raise chidren, take care of elderly members.
b) procreate
c) autonomous

homosexuals lack a ethical form,
1 homo,
2 homo,
3 homo...
...
10 homo.

I don't see any necessary form in this. Please explain.

Bill Snedden

Ummm...No?

If you're unsure of the meaning of the word "homosexuality", I suggest a dictionary. The meaning I've been employing, and I daresay the one just about everyone uses is: "sexual contact between individuals of the same sex."

The rest of your post was interesting, and I can't say that I necessarily disagree with any of it, but could you please come to the point?

WHY is homosexuality immoral?

In your reply you make to Dr. Rick, you talk of "form" and how homosexuality somehow lacks it. If this is the reason you mean to give for your stance on homosexuality, perhaps this question can clarify.

What is the "form" that renders heterosexuality moral?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr Rick

How is any of this related to homophobia?

How does "homosexuality is a misunderstood concept that lacks a rational, logical and necessary bases in ethics" any different from other "misunderstood concept that lack a rational, logical and necessary bases in ethics" such as music, trees, or vacations?

Your post is a random collection of irrelevant chatter that in no way justifies or even addresses homophobia

I don't see a necessity for a form. Please explain.

Also, does this make any sense to you?

"heterosexuals lack an ethical form,
1 hetero,
2 hetero,
3 hetero...
...
10 hetero.

I don't see any necessary form in this."

Does lining-up word roots with numbers convey some special meaning for you?