AJP..

My God (I'm back).

He was once your God too AJP I believe from a previous comment.

No ducking and weaving at all on the question of morality V ethics.

The problem with ethics is the ever moving yard-stick!
The problem with morality, is the disbelief of the Godless.
Obviously at times, morality and ethics will happily co-exist. Homosexuality is one of those occasions they don't.
You can happily apply your simple logic of equality to the acceptance of homosexuality, and its appropriateness to social inclusion. I can't as a moralist.
To a moralist, homosexuality is depraved!
To the ethicist, homosexuality is simply an aberration among gender!

The pointy ends of this argument will never meet. It becomes a simple problem to solve for the ethicist, by deriding all religion opposed to their acceptance of homosexuality.

This I maintain, has been achieved by a relentless attack on traditional societal norms of the most basic type, male V female!

Again I'm timed-out. I have a business to run. I'm happy to continue this conversation. But I wonder about the off-subject it is

diver dan,

What passes as moral behaviour can also be an “ever-moving yard-stick”.

<<The problem with ethics is the ever moving yard-stick!>>

And why is that a problem, by the way? Societies change, and we are always learning (and becoming more educated). Both morality and ethics change for these reasons, by sheer necessity. The Bible, for example, gives us precious little on matters such as, say, human cloning.

<<The problem with morality, is the disbelief of the Godless.>>

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, sorry.

<<Obviously at times, morality and ethics will happily co-exist. Homosexuality is one of those occasions they don't.>>

Not just co-exist, they overlap massively, if not entirely.

<<You can happily apply your simple logic of equality to the acceptance of homosexuality, and its appropriateness to social inclusion. I can't as a moralist.>>

So, then, how can you claim that your morals are in fact moral, if they disregard equality?

<<To a moralist, homosexuality is depraved!>>

Why? You still haven’t answered this.

<<To the ethicist, homosexuality is simply an aberration among gender!>>

Not quite. Gender is a different issue to sexuality.

<<It becomes a simple problem to solve for the ethicist, by deriding all religion opposed to their acceptance of homosexuality.>>

No, that wouldn't solve anything. Pointing out that there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is immoral does, however.

<<This I maintain, has been achieved by a relentless attack on traditional societal norms of the most basic type, male V female!>>

No, now you’re confusing sexuality with gender again.

Anyway, it appears that you don’t actually have, or even claim to have, a rational reason for believing that homosexuality is depraved, evil, immoral, or deserving of contempt. Your argument thus far has effectively amounted to, ‘Because that’s just what I believe’. Which is your prerogative, I suppose. I figured that was the case from the very beginning, anyway.

In future, however, it would be more honest if you were to frame your derogatory claims, regarding homosexuality, with qualifiers indicating that you are not necessarily making a statement of fact.

The village idiot has again demonstrated that he is lying when he refers to the non existent “inequality” of the law of marriage.
The law of marriage concerns relationships between men and women, and has no application to the relationships of perverts .Men and women, as parties to a marriage are treated equally by the law. The relationships of people of the same sex are not marriage, so until they give such relationships a name, and stop their mischievous reference to such relationships as marriage, they do not have a basis to seek recognition of such relationships. They certainly have no basis on which they can use the term “marriage” An appropriate term, such as “sodomity, would gain recognition, and the perverts could seek recognition of the form of the relationship, instead of baselessly, and maliciously, referring to their perverted unions as marriage.
I have not researched the law, but my recollection of the “decriminalisation” of perversion, was that it was by way of providing a defence to the charge of “unnatural sexual intercourse, so that if the parties had both reached the age of consent, and had both consented, they had a valid defence.
I am not aware of any removal of the charge of unnatural sexual intercourse from the statutes, or to any redefinition of its status as perversion.
The only interest the perverts have shown is by way of efforts to lower the age of consent.
Until they have a name for their relationships, they should rerer to them as perversion, and not baselessly and deceptively as “marriage”.
They are seeking a status for perversion, and should say so.
At the moment, all that they have is a defence to a criminal offence.

Back to name-calling, are we Leo Lane?

<<The village idiot has again demonstrated that he is lying when he refers to the non existent “inequality” of the law of marriage.>>

Really? You tried this one on in the last thread and failed miserably.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340457

Back for another shot, eh? Okay then.

<<The law of marriage concerns relationships between men and women, and has no application to the relationships of perverts>>

Correct. However, you are yet to demonstrate that gay people are perverts.

<<Men and women, as parties to a marriage are treated equally by the law.>>

Straw man. No one has claimed that there is sex discrimination here.

<<… until [gay people] give such relationships a name, and stop their mischievous reference to such relationships as marriage, …>>

Why should they have to use a different word? You have given no reason to believe that any mischief has occurred, either.

<<They certainly have no basis on which they can use the term “marriage”>>

Yes, they have: equal treatment.

<<… instead of baselessly, and maliciously, referring to their perverted unions as marriage.>>

You have provided no reason to believe that any malice has occurred. Perhaps you could start making a case for that by explaining how they’re “perverts”?

<<I am not aware of any removal of the charge of unnatural sexual intercourse from the statutes, or to any redefinition of its status as perversion.>>

That would probably depend on the state, I’m pretty sure all such offensive references were removed, though. So what if they weren’t?

<<The only interest the [homosexuals] have shown is by way of efforts to lower the age of consent.>>

The only?

Are you talking about the homophobic Queensland law? Yes, so they should. It was only ever there for homophobic reasons.

<<Until they have a name for their relationships, they should rerer to them as perversion, and not baselessly and deceptively as “marriage”.>>

You are yet to provide a reason as to why they should, or that they are perverts.

<<At the moment, all that they have is a defence to a criminal offence.>>

Which offence?

AJP..

*In future, however, it would be more honest if you were to frame your derogatory claims, regarding homosexuality, with qualifiers indicating that you are not necessarily making a statement of fact.*

Of course, using the AJP logic, homosexuality will never be wrong, since its detractors refuse to explain their moral objection to it.

I thought my objection to gay marriage was obvious. It is based on my adherence as a Christian, to Christian teachings that such acts are an abomination.

But further to your argument for gay marriage, and your base of equality to justify it, here is another point you will slip and slide on.

Here is a simple biological formula for you to consider:

MM =Equal
FF=Equal
MF=Unequal.

This proves the arrant nonsense of gay marriage based on equality.

Marriage actually takes the Unequal and performs the miracle of equality when based on biology. Marriage is a celebration of combining the Unequal into an equal force of two differing biological parts, for the sole purpose of procreation!

Homosexuals are by nature biological equals in the first instance. They have equality by that nature and therefore are unfit for marriage!

At no point have I suggested anything of the sort, diver dan.

<<Of course, using the AJP logic, homosexuality will never be wrong, since its detractors refuse to explain their moral objection to it.>>

Whether homosexuality is wrong has nothing to do with whether or not its detractors explain their objection to it.

However, you have made the claim that homosexuality is immoral, so it is therefore only reasonable that you support that claim with your reasoning behind it.

<<I thought my objection to gay marriage was obvious.>>

So, now we’re talking specifically about gay marriage? Okay then. But why the change?

<<[My objection to gay marriage] is based on my adherence as a Christian, to Christian teachings that such acts are an abomination.>>

Sure, I already figured that much out, but until you can demonstrated the existence of your god, that’s not a rational argument against homosexuality. Or same-sex marriage, as you have just recently narrowed the discussion down to.

<<But further to your argument for gay marriage, and your base of equality to justify it, here is another point you will slip and slide on.>>

“Another”? I haven’t slipped or slid an any points yet. But, okay, let’s see what you’ve got…

<<This proves the arrant nonsense of gay marriage based on equality.>>

No, that’s the Equivocation fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

It’s a fallacy that’s pulled every time there is talk of equality. Your “MF=Unequal” has nothing to do with equality in the sense that I have been talking about.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

<<Marriage actually takes the Unequal and performs the miracle of equality when based on biology.>>

Now you are committing both the Equivocation fallacy and the Naturalistic fallacy. Marriage is a social construct, too, not a biological construct. But I see now why you shifted the discussion to marriage specifically.

<<Homosexuals are by nature biological equals in the first instance. They have equality by that nature and therefore are unfit for marriage!>>

The Equivocation fallacy aside, marriage isn’t just about procreation. Would you, therefore, deny infertile heterosexual couples the right to marry? Of course not.

Your argument is bunk.