No, sir. I just don't happen to think private, non-violent, sexual behavior is immoral. It might be unwise or even self-destructive, but in a free country such as ours, we do own our lives and bodies, after all.
Now, if I thought it were all right in one situation, but not in another; or for one person or group, but not for another - that would imply I was a moral relativist.
As to the "lifestyle" at issue there are two different elements: identity and behavior. They are not the same thing. Homosexuals do not choose their identity. Years of empirical evidence can attest to that fact: it just happens, for whatever reason(s). As to behavior: that is very much a choice, and it involves a range of possible interactions, some far safer than others.
Finally, your drug example is not truly a fair analogy because use of crystal meth is always dangerous, whereas certain common practices between people are not. But to answer your question: yes, I would tell them it was dangerous and that they ought to stop. And it is not a hateful thing to talk to gay people that way, either. Many of them do still need to be encouraged to abandon practices that are shortening their lives, as you rightly note.
There is a vital difference between respecting a person's rights and privacy on one hand, and being compassionately honest with them, on the other.
That sounds a lot like moral relativism to me.
Homosexuals do not choose their identity.
Nonsense.
Years of empirical evidence can attest to that fact: it just happens, for whatever reason(s).
All of the studies have consisted of "data" where homosexuals declare that they have always "felt" that way. Further examination invariably establishes that they were abused and forced into their lifestyle.
As to behavior: that is very much a choice, and it involves a range of possible interactions, some far safer than others.
Even prior to the advent of AIDS there was evidence of homosexuals dying at a younger age.
But to answer your question: yes, I would tell them it was dangerous and that they ought to stop. And it is not a hateful thing to talk to gay people that way, either. Many of them do still need to be encouraged to abandon practices that are shortening their lives, as you rightly note.
Thank you for that.
There is a vital difference between respecting a person's rights and privacy on one hand, and being compassionately honest with them, on the other.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating telling homosexuals what they can and can't do in private, but tolerance is a far cry from approval.
That's certainly not what the founders of this republic believed. They believed it to be self-evident that such title belonged to our Creator.
Well, God does. And He condemns it for the sin it is.
It might be unwise or even self-destructive, but in a free country such as ours, we do own our lives and bodies, after all.
No man is an island.
Now, if I thought it were all right in one situation, but not in another; or for one person or group, but not for another - that would imply I was a moral relativist.
But you are because you just qualified the behavior in the previous paragraph as *private*. That implies that you think that *public* , non-violent, sexual behavior IS immoral. That would make it moral in certain circumstances and immoral in others.
Yup, that's moral relativism.
Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. Alexander Hamilton
Proctologists agree.
The butt damage alone puts their kids through college.
As to the "lifestyle" at issue there are two different elements: identity and behavior. They are not the same thing. Homosexuals do not choose their identity. Years of empirical evidence can attest to that fact: it just happens, for whatever reason(s). As to behavior: that is very much a choice, and it involves a range of possible interactions, some far safer than others.
Well that about seals the deal for me. On one hand we see "years of empirical evidence" and on the other we see God. You speak empirical evidence...
You do realize that the unproven state of being termed "homosexual" is arbitrary and a self declared matter of perception e.g. mental in nature? Until recently mental conditions that were self destructive and deviant from the norm were termed mental disorders THAT IS until politics coerced science. What makes you think your "Years of empirical evidence" has not been coerced the same way climate data or any number of data has been manipulated.
Anyway, regardless debating what the causes of disorder are I tend to focus on opposing the agenda that seeks to normalize it, the agenda that seeks to gain its acceptance, and the agenda that promotes it as worthy of societal value.
IF your "Years of empirical evidence" is proffered to gain acceptance and approval of or defend "private, non-violent, sexual behavior" THEN I would suggest that we do not even remotely discuss that here -THAT has nothing at all to do with opposing the homosexual agenda. In essence, you fight the good fight in a battle that is not even being waged here.
YOU sure quack like a duck, are well versed in pond swimming and have wings at the ready e.g. "Years of empirical evidence" to flap when necessary. IF you are not promoting the homosexual agenda then what exactly are you doing?
Our bodies are on loan from GOD. When I die, I won't take this body I have into the next life because I don't own it. It's not mine.
In the final analysis, it's not going to be up to what you think what is violent, all-well-and-good, deviant, or peachy-keen. That's GOD's job.
You have every right to destroy the life you have here. That's the God-Given Gift of Free Will. And if you do choose to destroy your life here on Earth, you've already told God where you want to end up in the next life. Either way, you can spend eternity in Heaven or hell.
These people are NOT private. They’ve joined together as a public political action lobbying group and are DEMANDING the US Congress sets up special laws FOR them. The US Senate including several traitorous RINO scumbags just caved in to some of their demands and now they will be coming for MORE! Their demands cut into OUR God-given UNALIENABLE rights and YOU are an IDIOT if you give them any slack!! Why do you think these useful idiots are all attacking the US Constitution from the left??? You’re allowed only one guess!