Morals can contradict. What about saying that it is moral to live in a brick house? Because it is. Something is moral if it is not immoral. No third option, either moral or immoral. Now, living in a wood house is also moral. So, by the logic that you've used, you must live in a brick house because it's moral. But I also must live in a wood house, because it's also moral.

If you disagree that living in brick houses or wood houses is moral, then... I don't really know what to say.

Quote from Skeletonxf

I don't understand you, are you saying homosexuality is a sin but not a major one or are you saying it is completely okay but somehow you don't agree with it?

I'm saying I consider it a sin, but then again, no one is without sin. Also it's not natural.
The whole "don't point at the splinter in another person's eye when you have a log in yours" thing is what I'm getting at here.
If this is going to make you cross question me and make me change the way I see homosexuality, well....don't. My mindset and perspective is mine, yours is yours. I'm just answering your question. I don't wish to start debate or see anyone criticize anyone else's beliefs.

Quote from poisonchocolate

No third option

Hmm, let me clear this up real quick.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Either good or bad. Used as good in contrast of immoral.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Specifically referring to the bad. But something that is immoral isn't always bad. Like how we all agree we shouldn't murder people, but when certain people are murdered no one cares.

Amoral: not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
Not a moral problem, like living in the woods.

Quote from Skeletonxf

I don't understand you, are you saying homosexuality is a sin but not a major one or are you saying it is completely okay but somehow you don't agree with it?

I think what he's saying is that even though he thinks it's a biblical sin, but that he doesn't care. Much like he probably doesn't care when he eats fat or wears clothes of mixed fabrics.

Quote from Captainalien72

Also it's not natural.

Dangerously close to the "Appeal to nature" logical fallacy. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, or if there are moral connotations.

Quote from Captainalien72

I'm saying I consider it a sin, but then again, no one is without sin. Also it's not natural.
The whole "don't point at the splinter in another person's eye when you have a log in yours" thing is what I'm getting at here.
If this is going to make you cross question me and make me change the way I see homosexuality, well....don't. My mindset and perspective is mine, yours is yours. I'm just answering your question. I don't wish to start debate or see anyone criticize anyone else's beliefs.

Why not? You're in a debate thread right now.
Given Jutsu's huge text wall about total lack of biblical support for homosexuality being a sin, on what basis do you think homosexuality is a sin? If you don't want to carry on discussing then fine, but until you can give a reason for that thought I'm going to assume its just a prejudice.

Quote from poisonchocolate

Morals can contradict. What about saying that it is moral to live in a brick house? Because it is. Something is moral if it is not immoral. No third option, either moral or immoral. Now, living in a wood house is also moral. So, by the logic that you've used, you must live in a brick house because it's moral. But I also must live in a wood house, because it's also moral.

If you disagree that living in brick houses or wood houses is moral, then... I don't really know what to say.

No. There is a third option, that something is neither moral nor immoral, this is amoral as Justu beat me to explaining. That is something that is neither wrong nor right, morally, to do. As in most personal choices that don't impact on others in an ethical way. There's nothing moral or immoral about deciding what type of house to live in. That would imply one of the two options has a goodness/rightness related to it which clearly they don't.

Edit: Ninja'd by Jutsu

Ok, so do we agree that homosexuality is amoral? Neither moral or immoral? I was misinterpreting the definition of moral.

Also, on the topic of homosexuality being a sin... It's hard for me to argue on that front because I'm really not religious, but how can something involuntary be a sin? Isn't that akin to saying that being autistic a sin? People are born with a certain orientation.

Quote from Skeletonxf

I think you're misusing the word moral.

If something is morally good, which I infer is what you meant in your post by 'highly moral', then it is something you ought/should do, given the ability to. You are meant to do things which are moral if you can do them, otherwise they are not morals - they are just guidelines to how you could behave. If Homosexuality is indeed moral, that doesn't mean it's just okay, it means you ought to be homosexual if you can be.

That would be a very weird moral indeed.

Yes I knew exactly what I meant. I was referring more to homosexuality's contribution to mankind's greatest pleasure: Lesbian pornography. So I do think it is moral, and I think we need to support, indulge and otherwise celebreate lesbian pornography as much as possible, which makes homosexuality at least an accessory to morality.

Quote from Skeletonxf

Anyway, homosexuality is not an action so calling it moral is also very weird for that reason - morals concern actions and consequences.

Oh my friends, lesbian porn has several actions and consequences.

Quote from Captainalien72

Also it's not natural.

Since you felt like posting this in the debate thread, I'm obliged to ask you. Are you basis this on any shred of realistic fact? Scientific finding, perhaps? Social results, perhaps? Bio-chemical analysis, perhaps? Or are you going with the usual argument of "Its my faith and my books says its wrong" ?

Just curious.

Quote from poisonchocolate

Also, on the topic of homosexuality being a sin... It's hard for me to argue on that front because I'm really not religious, but how can something involuntary be a sin? Isn't that akin to saying that being autistic a sin? People are born with a certain orientation.

The usual response to that is that homosexual sex is a sin and sometimes people even say homosexuals shouldn't try to get in a relationship with the same sex - both of which are acts and you can try to say are immoral although I'm yet to see any decent reasons for believing either of them are immoral.

Quote from Nish

Yes I knew exactly what I meant. I was referring more to homosexuality's contribution to mankind's greatest pleasure: Lesbian pornography. So I do think it is moral, and I think we need to support, indulge and otherwise celebreate lesbian pornography as much as possible, which makes homosexuality at least an accessory to morality.

Well in that case I can kinda see your point. Pornography can easily turn into objectifying people though, and I'd say that can be quite harmful.

If it wasn't natural, then no animals found in nature would exhibit homosexual behaviors. That is my contribution here.

Quote from Skeletonxf

Well in that case I can kinda see your point. Pornography can easily turn into objectifying people though, and I'd say that can be quite harmful.

Pornography objectifies people who consent to be objectified. I'm not talking about hidden cameras bullshit. I'm talking about Jodi West and Ava Devine going at it like animals. Non-consensual objectifying is another matter, but it has nothing to do with homosexuality specifically. Even a married relationship can lead to non-consensual objectifying but that doesn't make marraige immoral.

The actors wasn't actually the reason I meant it could be harmful, my point was more about the viewers. Pornography isn't even slightly like most sex within a relationship and in that way it can easily distort expectations and cause issues when the expectations and reality don't match up. This is kinda off topic though, and not really related to the thread.

I do not think we can call it moral or immoral since it depends of the point of view. Obviously since i am homosexual myself i do not find it immoral but i do accept other people's point of view and i do not think it matters.
If they dont like it, let it be. If they do, then they do!
It doesn't exactly answer this debate but i do not think there is actually an answer.

Quote from Skeletonxf

The actors wasn't actually the reason I meant it could be harmful, my point was more about the viewers. Pornography isn't even slightly like most sex within a relationship and in that way it can easily distort expectations and cause issues when the expectations and reality don't match up. This is kinda off topic though, and not really related to the thread.

Actually it is related to the thread because my hypothesis is that Homosexuality is moral because lesbian porn helps brighten the day and put a smile on the faces of many lonely men who, in the era before the internet, would have turned into sexual predators or committed suicide out of depression. To say that pornography is harmful because it doesn't portray sex realistically is like saying that Norman Rockwell paintings or sitcoms from the 50s are harmful because they provide an overtly chirpy, sweet, happy view of family life which is wildly inaccurate.

I think you're making a better case for pornography itself being moral, not necessarily homosexuality itself. While there is homosexuality in porn, it isn't necessarily the homosexuality that makes porn so delightful. Since every viewer of said porn have their own fetishes, some may find the homosexuality repulsive.

While people like you and I think lesbian porn is delectable.

My point is there are enough people in the world who find lesbianism soul-filling to make it a significant contributor to the spiritual rendering of pornography.

lesbian porn makes me happy, and it makes them happy. How is that wrong?