No one is predisposed to being sexually attractive to their own sibling. That's like saying you're genetically predisposed to only want to have sex with lounge singers named Laura.
This wasn’t the argument. The argument was homosexual acts should be considered ok because they are committed between two consenting adults.
To which I responded – so what? A sexual relationship between a brother and sister are two consenting adults. Clearly, just because two consenting adults agree to some behavior has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
Also, it is irrelevant if homosexuals are predisposed to being sexually attracted to their same sex. Again – this has no bearing on morality of behavior. It may explain it, but it doesn’t make it right.
Can't people be allowed to be sexually interested in whoever they will, granted that the object of attraction is able to give consent?
Ok, with that logic then most people would have to admit that there is nothing wrong with a brother and sister who want to engage in sexual relations as long as they both agree and are adults. Also, along that argument one would not be able to say that it is wrong for a person who is already married to have sex with another person who is also married as long as they both agree and are adults. Perhaps, you believe those things are ok – that’s fine. Unfortunately, most of society believes it wrong for those related to hook up and most society still believes adultery to be wrong.
Therefore, to answer your question, no, a person should not necessarily be allowed to have sex with whomever they want just because both are consenting. “Consenting adults” is not a valid argument and again has nothing to do with whether something is right or not.
I might also point out, by the way, that homosexual acts are not illegal anymore
I’m not discussing legality. I’m discussing right and wrong. Abortion is also legal and certainly not moral. As abortion proves, the legality of something is meaningless.
No, I believe that if two people choose to do something, it's none of my business. (Except under highly unusual circumstances that almost never apply.)
But that’s not what we’re discussing. We are discussing whether something is right or wrong. And, if one believes something to be wrong, there is an obligation to speak out.
whether something is right or not has nothing to do with if two people agree that it is.
It does it what they're deciding on is nobody else's business and doesn't affect anyone else.
Actually, it doesn’t. Right and wrong exist. And it doesn’t depend on the opinion of the person. The person can do whatever they like. For the umpteenth time – that is always their business. This however, has NOTHING to do with whether they are right or wrong. We don’t decide truth.
You tell me I have failed in showing that homosexual acts are wrong. But you have failed to show even one valid reason why they are ok.
How about as an expression of love between two people in a committed, loving relationship? How is that not ok?
Two people can make the same claim who are involved in an adulterous affair. Two related people could make the same claim. And yet, we as a society have no problem telling them their behavior is not ok, even if they “feel” like it is.
Here, you are proving my point all along – that your side, your position, is based solely on emotions and feelings. It isn’t based on logic, or facts, or observation, or reason. You choose to ignore the valid reason that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered because the body is not being used in the way it was intended. Your entire position is wrapped up in the huge “free choice” argument. Unfortunately, being able to choose freely also means one can choose wrongly (as is the case with those who engage in homosexual behavior).
And I could also comment here that simply because two people are in a “committed, loving relationship” if they are engaging in sex and not married then their behavior is immoral – heterosexual or homosexual.
So no, “expression of love” is meaningless. People are always trying to justify their “expressions of love” (“I know he’s married, but we love each other”, “I know we just met, but we couldn’t wait – we’re in love”, “I know she’s my best friends girl, but we love each other”). Feelings come and go. Feelings change. Morals are constant. If you want to do the right thing – you can’t always base it on your feelings.
A prison rape is a "homosexual act", so is an act of love and affection between two men in Massachusetts who are married to each other. Are you suggesting these are somehow equivalent? Don't you think it's demeaning to gay people to lump these together in the same category?
Do you hear yourself? You are a moral relativist. It is like listening to someone’s personal story about why they chose to have an abortion. I’m really sorry that you only had one year of school to complete, and I’m really sorry that your boyfriend walked out on you, and I’m really sorry for a million other reasons why a baby would simply be inconvenient for you at this time, but you want me to tell you that these reasons, these excuses, change the fact that abortion is murder? No can do. I can help you, I can cry with you, I can love you, but I can’t tell you a lie and tell you having an abortion is not murder.
You think the truth regarding something depends on our feelings?
Homosexual acts are immoral because they are immoral. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter how much the person wishes they weren’t.