http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1x...

<In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of "the Old Testament" is "hideous" and "a monster", and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character "in fiction". Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about.">

It'd appear unreasonable to deem something immoral if it were to cause the destruction of mankind when it was practiced solely.

<With that logic, a pastor is immoral - for if all were to become pastors, then all would die from starvation.>

???

Huh?

1. Everyone homosexuel
2. No more babies
3. End of human life in 122 years

Question posed: Does this mean that homosexuality is immoral.

Although I may have mistaken your intentions, I supposed the possible immorality was due to the humanity becoming extinct.

In that case, would it not be similar to:

1. Everyone becomes a pastor (or really any other occupation; everyone becoming a shoe-maker would be fine as well)

2. No-one produces and distributes food
3. End of humanity in much less than 122 years.

Seemed similar to me.

Why can't a pastor produce food? Can you think of any pastors that were unable to produce food?

Your second premise is false so your whole argument seems false.

There is no reason a pastor can not produce food.

But there is a reason that two men can not produce a baby.

Gay means happy.

<theFocus> Right. They must abandon their homosexuality in order to bring life into the world. Otherwise they will surely bring death and nothing else.

Two men can't make a baby.

If God (if you prefer Nature) meant for two men to have homosexual relations then why must they go outside of their homosexuality to bring forth life and perpetuate human existence?

From a secular viewpoint:

If morality evolved from a need to survive, then we would have to again conclude that homosexuality (the practice of it) is immoral because it does not help us survive. In fact it does the opposite; it impedes human reproduction.

By that line of reasoning, there would be a huge list of human behaviors that, although not considered immoral by many seemingly reasonable people, would be considered immoral by you. Examples could include recreational sex between married couples, playing cards, and kneeling down in prayer. How do any of these behaviors help people survive?

< Gregor Samsa Mendel: <BP>--<If morality evolved from a need to survive, then we would have to again conclude that homosexuality (the practice of it) is immoral because it does not help us survive.>

By that line of reasoning, there would be a huge list of human behaviors that, although not considered immoral by many seemingly reasonable people, would be considered immoral by you>

1. When you say, "considered by you" you are wrong. I do not have a secular point of view and I do not believe in moral relativism. So instead of saying "considered by you" you should say, "on moral relativism"

2. I agree with you when you say "by that line of reasoning, there would be a huge list of human behaviors that, although not considered immoral by many seemingly reasonable people, would be immoral" (by you? I am not a moral relativist).

That is precisely what is wrong with a moral-relativism worldview.

That was the line of reasoning of yours that I quoted. I said,

<By that line of reasoning, there would be a huge list of human behaviors that, although not considered immoral by many seemingly reasonable people, would be considered immoral by you>

I will be patient with you because I think it's morally good to be patient.

<Gregor Samsa Mendel: <BP>--<If morality evolved from a need to survive, then we would have to again conclude that homosexuality (the practice of it) is immoral because it does not help us survive.>

That was the line of reasoning of yours that I quoted. I said, >

That is not "my" line of reasoning. I'm simply stating how relativism works. Do you disagree that,

If morality evolved as a means for survival, then practiced homosexuality should be considered immoral, since it does not help our survival.

Again, my personal worldview is that of theism. I believe that God is the paradigm for moral values and duties.

I do not believe in "Nature" or "Mother Earth" and that sort of thing.

However, if, if, if, if, if, if - is the big word. This is a premise that I stated. It's not "my" view of how morality exists or works but rather an example of why relative morality DOESN'T work.

Hopefully this finally makes sense to you.

If you have any more questions please ask. I'm here to help and I enjoy discussing this as long as you are sincere. If you are not sincere then I wont discuss it.

<If> you state something, <then> you have stated it. It's <your> line of reasoning.

Here's a question I have for you--why do you ask questions, when you already know all the answers?>

But I never claimed to know all the answers. You lied just now.

Now I ask you:

Are there any questions you have asked that you don't already know the answer to?>

Yes, I respond to all questions but that doesn't mean I think I have all the answers. Did you read my post on the KR page where I told <shams> that I needed help from the liberals to really get to the nitty-gritty of the arguments?

Getting back to the topic:

On Secularism (or Humanism) and Relative Morality:
1. Morality evolved as a means for survival.
2. Homosexuality does the opposite of helping us survive (we need to go outside of homosexuality to survive) 3. Therefore, on secularism, humanism or relative morality, we should conclude that homosexuality is immoral.

This is if we run with relativistic theories of morality, whether it's wrapped up in secularism, humanism, scientism, materialism, metaphysical naturalism...any of those kinds of views.

That's my argument.

It's like this: I'm saying to forget about the Bible, Christianity or theism in general. We all know that those "close minded" worldviews judge homosexuality as immoral. Instead, let's be generous to the other side and go with their line of thinking.

Let's pretend we are humanists or naturalists or materialists. Okay, now that we are wearing this "secular hat" let's reason:

1. morality evolved as a means for human survival
2. homosexuality does not help us survive (must go outside it to produce more humans) 3. therefore, even as a naturalist (!), homosexuality SHOULD be considered immoral.