Of course you aren’t, because you know I could argue the same about yours.
Actually, not the reason I do not wish to get into this, is because it would allow to you to further ignore the major question that I have posed to you.
You, then, Pinkmilk are completely unaware of your own prejudice. If I had the time I would go through our correspondence and in fact show you all the times you have told me that the only reason I claim a certain thing is because as you like to say I have been indoctrinated.
I have never once stated that your opinions are due to your indoctrination. Never once. I am also not prejudiced. How does supporting someone's lifestyle mean that I am prejudice?
This Pinkmilk, is dismissing what I have to say because I am a believer. It is funny how you don’t even realize you too have been indoctrinated. You have been indoctrinated in secularism.
I don't dismiss what you have to say based on the fact that you are a believer, I dismiss what you say because you do not have the evidence to back it up.
You have to prove there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts. You have not done so, and in fact I have shown evidence showing otherwise.
You haven't. You have provided biased sources that state it is wrong, but that do not ultimately stand up as evidence. Homosexuality isn't wrong, because there is nothing wrong with it. Plain and simple. You don't have to agree, but if there is nothing wrong with it, then there isn't. You are the one who is making a claim here and you can not back it up with real evidence.
I have already shown that often “natural” means bupkis. A pedophile is naturally attracted to children. I might have a natural predisposition to alcoholism. We can’t base what is right and wrong on what we think is “natural.”
Yeah, yeah, same old song and dance. But you are ignoring why some things are wrong and why others aren't. Some things effect other people, others don't.
Homosexualtiy doesn’t affect anyone? That doesn’t make sense? If a person engages in a homosexual act it affects themselves, and the person they are having sex with. It might even affect those close to them who witness their behavior. Sorry, but you simply can’t say homosexuality has no effect.
Heterosexual sex affects both parties involved and might affect those who witness their behaviour. This argument doesn't hold up, because it doesn't differ from one relationship to the next. The only way it would affect those around them negatively is if they are against the concept of homosexuality, which is those people's problem, not the couples.
First, you can’t get out of having to prove your position by simply declaring that you have no origin to base your thoughts on. If anything, the fact that you admit you have nothing to base your thoughts on, shows the weakness in your argument all the more. But even so, you should still be required to show evidence for why you hold the position you do. But what’s that? Can’t do it? I know you can’t. Because your position is based on emotion and no facts. This is what I have been saying all along.
My argument isn't based on emotions at all, but rather that I believe in the philosophy live and let live. You clearly don't. You have yet to prove that the basis for your arguments holds water, and have not made an attempt, other than to try to attack my position. Why? Perhaps you can't prove natural moral order.
Second, I have already stated in a different thread that I would never be able to prove to you beyond a doubt that my views regarding homosexual acts are true. Therefore, it looks like neither of us can completely prove our position. I have certainly asserted more science, facts, observation, and logic then yours. Your position ignores the current research on homosexuality.
It doesn't at all. None of the "research" you've provided is without bias.
Therefore, I suppose we both at this point should simply agree to disagree. The problem is you and many others on this site continue to accuse me of being an intolerant bigot. I find that completely unacceptable. What makes my views bigoted and not yours?
Because you are deeming people's life styles wrong. I'm not. Plain and simple.
It reminds my of an Ally McBeal episode I saw years ago (I know I’m dating myself). Ally and some rival lawyer were going at it and the rival, commenting on the very short skirt Ally was wearing said, “How can you be so sure mini skirts are coming back in style”, and Ally replied, “Because I’m wearing one.”
And this has to do with what?
Well, her comment was certainly clever, of course just because she wants it to be so, doesn’t make it so. Get it Pinkmilk? You can’t say your position that homosexual acts are ok is right because you’re proclaiming it. I’m gonna need a little more proof and logic than that.
Without showing what is wrong with it, than that means it is not wrong. You can't show that there is anything wrong with it.
Now that you've avoided my question yet again, please provide evidence to show that natural moral order is true. Ignore homosexuality, and all the other things you find wrong as a result of natural moral order, and just focus on proving that natural moral order is indeed true. That's all I'm asking of you at this point. It's not a difficult question. At this point it seems you are intentionally ignoring my question to you and that is against forum rules. So please answer me.