Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Let me repeat this: If a straight man experiments and tries sex with a man I would call that act immoral. Am I basing that on genetics or solely on the act? And I see you have once again resorted to ad hominem...

I have answered this several times, so I'll refer you to my previous answers. I also note you did not respond to the analogous scenario I posted, so I presume you don't have one. The logic (and parallelism) is irrefutable. As for the "ad hominem," I don't see how the concluding comment is any more an ad hominem than telling a sexually active, married gay person that they are "immoral." Your position on this, for reasons I have already cited, amounts to sexual bigotry/prejudice. It is immoral. That you cannot see it, and cannot not even follow the argument is irrelevant. It's a little sad - but it's irrelevant.

If someone is going to hold a position as tightly as many on the right hold for this one, they should at least understand their own argument, and be able to refute logical argumentation against it. I'm not seeing any of that here. I can only conclude that the position is not a reasoned one - it is one based in emotion and revulsion, or simple blind obedience to your interpretation of "the will of your god."

I will wait for others to weigh in. It is fairly clear that you and Sparko are (for whatever reason) not able to respond to the core of the argument in a way I would consider rational.

[Sparko]

I have answered this several times, so I'll refer you to my previous answers.

^unable to answer Seer directly. Deflecting to some mysterious "previous answer"

I will wait for others to weigh in. It is fairly clear that you and Sparko are (for whatever reason) not able to respond to the core of the argument in a way I would consider rational.

Then accuses Seer and I of not being able to respond to your argument.

ahem.

[seer]

I have answered this several times, so I'll refer you to my previous answers. I also note you did not respond to the analogous scenario I posted, so I presume you don't have one. The logic (and parallelism) is irrefutable. As for the "ad hominem," I don't see how the concluding comment is any more an ad hominem than telling a sexually active, married gay person that they are "immoral." Your position on this, for reasons I have already cited, amounts to sexual bigotry/prejudice. It is immoral. That you cannot see it, and cannot not even follow the argument is irrelevant. It's a little sad - but it's irrelevant.

If someone is going to hold a position as tightly as many on the right hold for this one, they should at least understand their own argument, and be able to refute logical argumentation against it. I'm not seeing any of that here. I can only conclude that the position is not a reasoned one - it is one based in emotion and revulsion, or simple blind obedience to your interpretation of "the will of your god."

I will wait for others to weigh in. It is fairly clear that you and Sparko are (for whatever reason) not able to respond to the core of the argument in a way I would consider rational.

No Carp, I would like a straight answer not a dissertation:


If a straight man experiments and tries sex with a man I would call that act immoral. Am I basing that on genetics or solely on the act?

[carpedm9587]

^unable to answer Seer directly. Deflecting to some mysterious "previous answer"


Then accuses Seer and I of not being able to respond to your argument.

ahem.

I had to chuckle at this one. The two of you have been avoiding the core argument pretty much from the outset, have not responded to pretty much any of the parallel scenarios (including the last one) and I've actually been responding in good faith to each of yours. I think I'll let the readers of this thread come to their own conclusion.

I honestly don't know if you two are intentionally torturing the logic, or if you two simply don't have the tools of basic logic to work with. This is not complex, but you are reversing necessary/sufficient, substituting contrapositives, and making pretty much every other basic logic error I've ever encountered, all the while not responding to the core argument.

You guys are not stupid. So I truly do not know why this is so difficult for you two to grasp. But I am out of analogs to show you, and you're ignoring them anyway, so I do not see a point.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I would like a straight answer not a dissertation:


If a straight man experiments and tries sex with a man I would call that act immoral. Am I basing that on genetics or solely on the act?

Since you consider any casual sex immoral, that would be immoral in your book and it would/could have nothing to do with the sex of the partners. And it also does not refute the argument I've made (since it has nothing to do with it).

So you're turn: two people get married and are intimate in the context of a life-long loving relationship. Without knowing the gender/sex of the two people - tell me if this act is moral or immoral?

[Sparko]

I had to chuckle at this one. The two of you have been avoiding the core argument pretty much from the outset, have not responded to pretty much any of the parallel scenarios (including the last one) and I've actually been responding in good faith to each of yours. I think I'll let the readers of this thread come to their own conclusion.

I honestly don't know if you two are intentionally torturing the logic, or if you two simply don't have the tools of basic logic to work with. This is not complex, but you are reversing necessary/sufficient, substituting contrapositives, and making pretty much every other basic logic error I've ever encountered, all the while not responding to the core argument.

You guys are not stupid. So I truly do not know why this is so difficult for you two to grasp. But I am out of analogs to show you, and you're ignoring them anyway, so I do not see a point.

we haven't been dodging anything. We have been trying to explain why you are wrong. over, and over, and over. giving you analogy after analogy. going into great detail. again, and again. You seem to just keep finding ways to dodge them, or argue against the analogy instead of what it represents. Nitpicking some irrelevant detail. Redefining a term here and there.

If you are doing it on purpose I have to admit you are highly skilled at dodging. If not, they you might want to consider stopping and being more direct. Oxmix has completely boxed you in with his analogy and you just keep trying to find some way to misinterpret what he says, or argue some niggling point, or just outright dodge the points he has made. It's like watching a politician testifying before congress.

[carpedm9587]

we haven't been dodging anything. We have been trying to explain why you are wrong. over, and over, and over. giving you analogy after analogy. going into great detail. again, and again. You seem to just keep finding ways to dodge them, or argue against the analogy instead of what it represents. Nitpicking some irrelevant detail. Redefining a term here and there.

If you are doing it on purpose I have to admit you are highly skilled at dodging. If not, they you might want to consider stopping and being more direct. Oxmix has completely boxed you in with his analogy and you just keep trying to find some way to misinterpret what he says, or argue some niggling point, or just outright dodge the points he has made. It's like watching a politician testifying before congress.

So here is the nut of what I have been saying, Sparko. I cannot see how you can possibly dodge this question. I asked Seer the same one: two people get married and are intimate in the context of a life-long loving relationship. Without knowing the gender/sex of the two people - tell me if this act is moral or immoral?

[Sparko]

Since you consider any casual sex immoral, that would be immoral in your book and it would/could have nothing to do with the sex of the partners. And it also does not refute the argument I've made (since it has nothing to do with it).

So you're turn: two people get married and are intimate in the context of a life-long loving relationship. Without knowing the gender/sex of the two people - tell me if this act is moral or immoral?

Christians think same sex marriage is immoral too. Not just same sex sex.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women, not a man and a car, or a woman and a dolphin, or two dolphins. Anything that is not a man and a woman (who are not related of course) is immoral. Even if they don't have sex in the marriage. Two hetrosexual men getting married as a joke or to scam the IRS and have no sex, would still be immoral.

eta: actually we would not even consider it a real marriage. It would be null and void, because to a Christian while the marriage is performed by the state, it is God who marries a man to a woman.

So two gay people who are married and having sex would be the equivalent of two single people having sex outside of marriage.

[seer]

So here is the nut of what I have been saying, Sparko. I cannot see how you can possibly dodge this question. I asked Seer the same one: two people get married and are intimate in the context of a life-long loving relationship. Without knowing the gender/sex of the two people - tell me if this act is moral or immoral?

Carp, it is a simple question: If a straight man experiments and tries sex with a man I would call that act immoral. Am I basing that on genetics or solely on the act?

[seer]

I asked Seer the same one: two people get married and are intimate in the context of a life-long loving relationship. Without knowing the gender/sex of the two people - tell me if this act is moral or immoral?

How could I answer that? What if a woman married her adult daughter? You would automatically call that moral?

[carpedm9587]

Christians think same sex marriage is immoral too. Not just same sex sex.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women, not a man and a car, or a woman and a dolphin, or two dolphins. Anything that is not a man and a woman (who are not related of course) is immoral. Even if they don't have sex in the marriage. Two hetrosexual men getting married as a joke or to scam the IRS and have no sex, would still be immoral.

I know that, Sparko. So answer the question: Two people in a lifelong married state are sexually intimate. Is either the marriage OR the sexual act immoral? Note that I have not specified the sex of either person. Can you answer the question without that information?

[carpedm9587]

How could I answer that? What if a woman married her adult daughter?

LOL... you DID find a way to dodge. OK - let's do it this way:

Two people are in a loving, lifelong married relationship and are sexually intimate. The marriage meets EVERY christian requirement for "valid" marriage/relationship. The ONLY possible difference is it might be two people of the same sex or two people of opposite sex, and you do not have that piece of information.

Is the marriage and sexual activity moral or immoral?


Are you seeing the problem yet...?

[seer]

LOL... you DID find a way to dodge. OK - let's do it this way:

Two people are in a loving, lifelong married relationship and are sexually intimate. The marriage meets EVERY christian requirement for "valid" marriage/relationship. The ONLY possible difference is it might be two people of the same sex or two people of opposite sex, and you do not have that piece of information.

Is the marriage and sexual activity moral or immoral?

It was not a dodge Carp, and you don't get to go on until you answer this: If a straight man experiments and tries sex with a man I would call that act immoral. Am I basing that on genetics or solely on the act? How about a straight answer?

[Sparko]

I know that, Sparko. So answer the question: Two people in a lifelong married state are sexually intimate. Is either the marriage OR the sexual act immoral? Note that I have not specified the sex of either person. Can you answer the question without that information?

as seer said no I can't answer it. there is not enough information.

although I added to my last post which you missed so I will repeat the entire post again:

-----------
Christians think same sex marriage is immoral too. Not just same sex sex.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women, not a man and a car, or a woman and a dolphin, or two dolphins. Anything that is not a man and a woman (who are not related of course) is immoral. Even if they don't have sex in the marriage. Two hetrosexual men getting married as a joke or to scam the IRS and have no sex, would still be immoral.

Actually we would not even consider it a real marriage. It would be null and void, because to a Christian while the marriage is performed by the state, it is God who marries a man to a woman.
So two gay people who are married and having sex would be the equivalent of two single people having sex outside of marriage.

--------------------

So in conclusion: Anything that is not a man and a woman (adults), who are not closely related, cannot be married according to Christian belief. At best it would be a sham wedding and not count. So with that in mind you can answer your own question.

[carpedm9587]

as seer said no I can't answer it. there is not enough information.

although I added to my last post which you missed so I will repeat the entire post again:

-----------
Christians think same sex marriage is immoral too. Not just same sex sex.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women, not a man and a car, or a woman and a dolphin, or two dolphins. Anything that is not a man and a woman (who are not related of course) is immoral. Even if they don't have sex in the marriage. Two hetrosexual men getting married as a joke or to scam the IRS and have no sex, would still be immoral.

Actually we would not even consider it a real marriage. It would be null and void, because to a Christian while the marriage is performed by the state, it is God who marries a man to a woman.
So two gay people who are married and having sex would be the equivalent of two single people having sex outside of marriage.

--------------------

So in conclusion: Anything that is not a man and a woman (adults), who are not closely related, cannot be married according to Christian belief. At best it would be a sham wedding and not count. So with that in mind you can answer your own question.

So I come back to my original point. I responded to Seer's dodge by noting that the two people in the married relationship met EVERY christian requirement for a moral, valid marriage - except that you do not know the sex of the two people. That is the only missing piece of information.

Is you answer that you STILL do not have enough information to say if this is moral or immoral?