Moral Supervenience

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality in the widest sense is related to survival of the species and the sexual function has evolved for that specific purpose. Thus any deviation from this purpose is immoral in principle.

So I take it playing checkers is "immoral" in principle? Certainly, that seems to deviate from the direct purpose of "survival of the species". At least I don't see how playing checkers helps with survival. I mean, we do lots of things in our spare time that are probably just as unrelated or irrelevant to survival as homosexuality (or else recreational sex) purportedly is.

Think!
Humans are not "programmed" to play checkers toward the direct purpose of "survival of the species." Why don't you mention tennis?
There are various core programs humans are endowed with toward the 'survival of the species' e.g. breathing, hunger to eat, sex to produce the next generations, etc.

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above, homophobia and being homophobic is immoral and such homosexuals ought-not be condemned.

So you say homosexuality is immoral in principle but homosexuals shouldn't be "condemned". What do you mean by "condemned"? Isn't calling them immoral sort of "condemnation"?

I did not call homosexuals immoral, where did I do that? That is only from your imagination.
I stated the state of homosexuality is immoral, i.e. not-moral in principle.

I had stated homosexuality is a normal-abnormality which the person did not choose to be born with, as such we ought-not to condemn the person.
It is the same with say crime of passion that end up with someone killed, we abhor the act of killing but not the killer.

It is the same with we ought-not to condemn Muslims for the killings by Muslims even the evil prone ones because they are actually the unfortunately victims of the evil ideology of Islam.

• Do Not Blame Muslims!
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24842

[Gary Childress]

Morality in the widest sense is related to survival of the species and the sexual function has evolved for that specific purpose. Thus any deviation from this purpose is immoral in principle.

So I take it playing checkers is "immoral" in principle? Certainly, that seems to deviate from the direct purpose of "survival of the species". At least I don't see how playing checkers helps with survival. I mean, we do lots of things in our spare time that are probably just as unrelated or irrelevant to survival as homosexuality (or else recreational sex) purportedly is.

Think!
Humans are not "programmed" to play checkers toward the direct purpose of "survival of the species." Why don't you mention tennis?
There are various core programs humans are endowed with toward the 'survival of the species' e.g. breathing, hunger to eat, sex to produce the next generations, etc.

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above, homophobia and being homophobic is immoral and such homosexuals ought-not be condemned.

So you say homosexuality is immoral in principle but homosexuals shouldn't be "condemned". What do you mean by "condemned"? Isn't calling them immoral sort of "condemnation"?

I did not call homosexuals immoral, where did I do that? That is only from your imagination.
I stated the state of homosexuality is immoral, i.e. not-moral in principle.

I had stated homosexuality is a normal-abnormality which the person did not choose to be born with, as such we ought-not to condemn the person.
It is the same with say crime of passion that end up with someone killed, we abhor the act of killing but not the killer.

My mistake. I took "morally wrong" and "immoral" as more or less synonyms. You stated:

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

Maybe you could unpack what you mean by that a little? It sounds to me like you are equating it with wrongdoing. Or do you mean it is nonmoral, meaning it doesn't fall within the realm of morality or moral considerations?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So I take it playing checkers is "immoral" in principle? Certainly, that seems to deviate from the direct purpose of "survival of the species". At least I don't see how playing checkers helps with survival. I mean, we do lots of things in our spare time that are probably just as unrelated or irrelevant to survival as homosexuality (or else recreational sex) purportedly is.

Think!
Humans are not "programmed" to play checkers toward the direct purpose of "survival of the species." Why don't you mention tennis?
There are various core programs humans are endowed with toward the 'survival of the species' e.g. breathing, hunger to eat, sex to produce the next generations, etc.

So you say homosexuality is immoral in principle but homosexuals shouldn't be "condemned". What do you mean by "condemned"? Isn't calling them immoral sort of "condemnation"?

I did not call homosexuals immoral, where did I do that? That is only from your imagination.
I stated the state of homosexuality is immoral, i.e. not-moral in principle.

I had stated homosexuality is a normal-abnormality which the person did not choose to be born with, as such we ought-not to condemn the person.
It is the same with say crime of passion that end up with someone killed, we abhor the act of killing but not the killer.

My mistake. I took "morally wrong" and "immoral" as more or less synonyms. You stated:

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

Maybe you could unpack what you mean by that a little? It sounds to me like you are equating it with wrongdoing. Or do you mean it is nonmoral, meaning it doesn't fall within the realm of morality or moral considerations?

Nope it has nothing to do with wrongdoing nor the acts of homosexuals.

The issue of Homosexuality does fall within the domain of morality.
Immoral and wrong seem to be provocative, perhaps I should say homosexuality is not- acceptable-in-principle within the domain of morality.

[Gary Childress]

Think!
Humans are not "programmed" to play checkers toward the direct purpose of "survival of the species." Why don't you mention tennis?
There are various core programs humans are endowed with toward the 'survival of the species' e.g. breathing, hunger to eat, sex to produce the next generations, etc.


I did not call homosexuals immoral, where did I do that? That is only from your imagination.
I stated the state of homosexuality is immoral, i.e. not-moral in principle.

I had stated homosexuality is a normal-abnormality which the person did not choose to be born with, as such we ought-not to condemn the person.
It is the same with say crime of passion that end up with someone killed, we abhor the act of killing but not the killer.

My mistake. I took "morally wrong" and "immoral" as more or less synonyms. You stated:

Morality wise, homosexuality is morally wrong which is a moral fact.

Maybe you could unpack what you mean by that a little? It sounds to me like you are equating it with wrongdoing. Or do you mean it is nonmoral, meaning it doesn't fall within the realm of morality or moral considerations?

Nope it has nothing to do with wrongdoing nor the acts of homosexuals.

The issue of Homosexuality does fall within the domain of morality.
Immoral and wrong seem to be provocative, perhaps I should say homosexuality is not- acceptable-in-principle within the domain of morality.

What do you mean by "not-acceptable-in-principle"?

And is playing checkers "not-acceptable-in-principle"? Why or why not?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My mistake. I took "morally wrong" and "immoral" as more or less synonyms. You stated:



Maybe you could unpack what you mean by that a little? It sounds to me like you are equating it with wrongdoing. Or do you mean it is nonmoral, meaning it doesn't fall within the realm of morality or moral considerations?

Nope it has nothing to do with wrongdoing nor the acts of homosexuals.

The issue of Homosexuality does fall within the domain of morality.
Immoral and wrong seem to be provocative, perhaps I should say homosexuality is not- acceptable-in-principle within the domain of morality.

What do you mean by "not-acceptable-in-principle"?
And is playing checkers "not-acceptable-in-principle"? Why or why not?

You don't seem to get the point, if you cannot differentiate 'playing checkers' from a critical mental functions such a morality, then, you can refer to any other human activities which would be absurd. Then whatever one do is 'not-acceptable-in-principle'.

Perhaps the choice of word is a problem in this case due to your ignorance of what morality-proper is.
Let's try the term 'anti-morality'.

But as I had said, homosexuality as anti-morality is not a serious and critical issue to morality so we can leave it aside for the meantime.

[Gary Childress]

Nope it has nothing to do with wrongdoing nor the acts of homosexuals.

The issue of Homosexuality does fall within the domain of morality.
Immoral and wrong seem to be provocative, perhaps I should say homosexuality is not- acceptable-in-principle within the domain of morality.

What do you mean by "not-acceptable-in-principle"?
And is playing checkers "not-acceptable-in-principle"? Why or why not?

You don't seem to get the point, if you cannot differentiate 'playing checkers' from a critical mental functions such a morality, then, you can refer to any other human activities which would be absurd. Then whatever one do is 'not-acceptable-in-principle'.

Perhaps the choice of word is a problem in this case due to your ignorance of what morality-proper is.
Let's try the term 'anti-morality'.

But as I had said, homosexuality as anti-morality is not a serious and critical issue to morality so we can leave it aside for the meantime.

So it sounds like you are saying that checkers doesn't really have a moral aspect either one way or the other, is that correct? But homosexuality does and is "not-acceptable-in-principle" (as opposed to something that might be "acceptable-in-principle"). Is that correct?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What do you mean by "not-acceptable-in-principle"?
And is playing checkers "not-acceptable-in-principle"? Why or why not?

You don't seem to get the point, if you cannot differentiate 'playing checkers' from a critical mental functions such a morality, then, you can refer to any other human activities which would be absurd. Then whatever one do is 'not-acceptable-in-principle'.

Perhaps the choice of word is a problem in this case due to your ignorance of what morality-proper is.
Let's try the term 'anti-morality'.

But as I had said, homosexuality as anti-morality is not a serious and critical issue to morality so we can leave it aside for the meantime.

So it sounds like you are saying that checkers doesn't really have a moral aspect either one way or the other, is that correct? But homosexuality does and is "not-acceptable-in-principle" (as opposed to something that might be "acceptable-in-principle"). Is that correct?

Yes, playing checkers itself is not an issue within the domain of morality and ethics.
If you research and exhaust all that is written about morality & ethics, you will never find 'playing checkers' itself as an issue within morality. If anyone cheated during the games of checker, the moral issue is 'cheating-in-general' which can happen anywhere.

The most critical issues with the heaviest weightage within morality are those related to killing [murder, genocides, abortion, homicide], rapes, slavery, racism, infringement of basic human rights, torture, inflicting harm/pain, corruption, stealing, lying, and the whole gamut of what is defined as 'evil'.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Note the common Trolley Problems tossed within and around the subject of morality which is about 'killing' one or many etc.

Homosexuality and Homophobic are two separate issues within morality.
Homosexuality-in-principle as raised above is a moral issue but do not carry high weightage within the domain of morality-proper.

Homophobia and homophobic are however a serious issue within morality from another perspective in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of the individual person. However at present there are great improvements in the moral consciousness in the majority's attitude toward the acceptance of the the LBGTQ community.

[Sculptor]

Who the F..k should consider your patience?
If you don't get the given clues, that is your business not my responsibility.

I thought you might want to try to convey an idea since you posted this stuff.

Sadly you seem incapable of conveying anything but your own confusion

Read my OP again, I qualify that with "Discuss" which imply I am inviting ideas from those interested or who are well versed in contributing their ideas on the subject.

Then you would do well to remember that.

[Sculptor]

What do you mean by "not-acceptable-in-principle"?
And is playing checkers "not-acceptable-in-principle"? Why or why not?

You don't seem to get the point, if you cannot differentiate 'playing checkers' from a critical mental functions such a morality, then, you can refer to any other human activities which would be absurd. Then whatever one do is 'not-acceptable-in-principle'.

Perhaps the choice of word is a problem in this case due to your ignorance of what morality-proper is.
Let's try the term 'anti-morality'.

But as I had said, homosexuality as anti-morality is not a serious and critical issue to morality so we can leave it aside for the meantime.

So it sounds like you are saying that checkers doesn't really have a moral aspect either one way or the other, is that correct? But homosexuality does and is "not-acceptable-in-principle" (as opposed to something that might be "acceptable-in-principle"). Is that correct?

What he is trying to say is that homosexuals are not acceptable in fact. or principle. Since the fact of a homosexual is constituted by the indelible and necessary fact that they embody the principle of homosexuality.
He can wriggle as much as he likes. He is simply a homophone, and over that he can make a reasonable choice. No one chooses to be a homosexual anymore than I (or I assume Veritas) chose to be heterosexual.

[Sculptor]

Homosexuality and Homophobic are two separate issues within morality.
Homosexuality-in-principle as raised above is a moral issue but do not carry high weightage within the domain of morality-proper.

Homophobia and homophobic are however a serious issue within morality from another perspective in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of the individual person. However at present there are great improvements in the moral consciousness in the majority's attitude toward the acceptance of the the LBGTQ community.

When did you start to worry about having feelings towards other men Veritas?

[Gary Childress]

You don't seem to get the point, if you cannot differentiate 'playing checkers' from a critical mental functions such a morality, then, you can refer to any other human activities which would be absurd. Then whatever one do is 'not-acceptable-in-principle'.

Perhaps the choice of word is a problem in this case due to your ignorance of what morality-proper is.
Let's try the term 'anti-morality'.

But as I had said, homosexuality as anti-morality is not a serious and critical issue to morality so we can leave it aside for the meantime.

So it sounds like you are saying that checkers doesn't really have a moral aspect either one way or the other, is that correct? But homosexuality does and is "not-acceptable-in-principle" (as opposed to something that might be "acceptable-in-principle"). Is that correct?

Yes, playing checkers itself is not an issue within the domain of morality and ethics.
If you research and exhaust all that is written about morality & ethics, you will never find 'playing checkers' itself as an issue within morality. If anyone cheated during the games of checker, the moral issue is 'cheating-in-general' which can happen anywhere.

The most critical issues with the heaviest weightage within morality are those related to killing [murder, genocides, abortion, homicide], rapes, slavery, racism, infringement of basic human rights, torture, inflicting harm/pain, corruption, stealing, lying, and the whole gamut of what is defined as 'evil'.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Note the common Trolley Problems tossed within and around the subject of morality which is about 'killing' one or many etc.

Homosexuality and Homophobic are two separate issues within morality.
Homosexuality-in-principle as raised above is a moral issue but do not carry high weightage within the domain of morality-proper.

Homophobia and homophobic are however a serious issue within morality from another perspective in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of the individual person. However at present there are great improvements in the moral consciousness in the majority's attitude toward the acceptance of the the LBGTQ community.

So what's the qualitative difference that separates recreational sex like homosexuality from a recreational game like checkers? Neither causes harm to anyone (except maybe a bruised ego when you lose checkers or when you lose a mate). Neither is necessary for survival purposes. Why should one be "morally wrong" and the other have no moral significance at all?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, playing checkers itself is not an issue within the domain of morality and ethics.
If you research and exhaust all that is written about morality & ethics, you will never find 'playing checkers' itself as an issue within morality. If anyone cheated during the games of checker, the moral issue is 'cheating-in-general' which can happen anywhere.

The most critical issues with the heaviest weightage within morality are those related to killing [murder, genocides, abortion, homicide], rapes, slavery, racism, infringement of basic human rights, torture, inflicting harm/pain, corruption, stealing, lying, and the whole gamut of what is defined as 'evil'.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Note the common Trolley Problems tossed within and around the subject of morality which is about 'killing' one or many etc.

Homosexuality and Homophobic are two separate issues within morality.
Homosexuality-in-principle as raised above is a moral issue but do not carry high weightage within the domain of morality-proper.

Homophobia and homophobic are however a serious issue within morality from another perspective in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of the individual person. However at present there are great improvements in the moral consciousness in the majority's attitude toward the acceptance of the the LBGTQ community.

So what's the qualitative difference that separates recreational sex like homosexuality from a recreational game like checkers? Neither causes harm to anyone (except maybe a bruised ego when you lose checkers or when you lose a mate).

The issue here is not about recreational sex or the sex acts which are done by both heterosexual and homosexuals.

Homosexuality is a biological and psychological issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_a ... rientation

Playing checkers is a game like any other game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draughts

Btw, there is also a difference between bisexuality and homosexuality.
Homosexuality is more of a biological issue whereas bisexuality is more of a psychological matter.
Homosexuality arise due to some variance in the biological set-up within the norms of sexuality.

You need to pause and review your knowledge competence in this two points if you are unable to differentiate homosexuality [biological state] from playing checkers.

Neither is necessary for survival purposes. Why should one be "morally wrong" and the other have no moral significance at all?

Humans evolved with heterosexuality to ensure the reproduction of the next generations.

Say, if the next generation comprised of 10,000 people of equal males and females.
For some reason ALL the males and females turned to be homosexuals.
Ceteris paribus, the human species would be extinct by the following generation which contra the original natural flow of evolution.

It is in this sense that homosexuality is anti-morality.

If all the 10,000 people are heterosexuals and like playing checkers that is not a threat to the survival of the species, thus no moral significance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What he is trying to say is that homosexuals are not acceptable in fact. or principle. Since the fact of a homosexual is constituted by the indelible and necessary fact that they embody the principle of homosexuality.
He can wriggle as much as he likes. He is simply a homophone, and over that he can make a reasonable choice. No one chooses to be a homosexual anymore than I (or I assume Veritas) chose to be heterosexual.

Note I stated the following earlier;

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above,
homophobia and being homophobic are immoral and as such, homosexuals ought-not be condemned.
viewtopic.php?p=472538#p472538

How come you are so stupid and desperate [evident by the typo error] in blurting out "he is simply a homophone" despite my assertion above.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homophobe
homophobe: a person who hates, fears, or scorns gay people or gay sexual orientation.

From the above, something is obviously wrong with you in being a liar.

[Sculptor]

What he is trying to say is that homosexuals are not acceptable in fact. or principle. Since the fact of a homosexual is constituted by the indelible and necessary fact that they embody the principle of homosexuality.
He can wriggle as much as he likes. He is simply a homophone, and over that he can make a reasonable choice. No one chooses to be a homosexual anymore than I (or I assume Veritas) chose to be heterosexual.

Note I stated the following earlier;

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above,

You can scream ans stamp your feet as much as you like.
You are nothing more than a little pathetic queer basher.
Declaring homosexuality as immoral is homophobic. That is what homophobia looks like you stupid dumb fuckwit

[Veritas Aequitas]

What he is trying to say is that homosexuals are not acceptable in fact. or principle. Since the fact of a homosexual is constituted by the indelible and necessary fact that they embody the principle of homosexuality.
He can wriggle as much as he likes. He is simply a homophone, and over that he can make a reasonable choice. No one chooses to be a homosexual anymore than I (or I assume Veritas) chose to be heterosexual.

Note I stated the following earlier;

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful albeit immoral in principle.
However as I had stated above,

You can scream ans stamp your feet as much as you like.
You are nothing more than a little pathetic queer basher.
Declaring homosexuality as immoral is homophobic. That is what homophobia looks like you stupid dumb fuckwit

You are the stupid idiotic fuckwit.

homophobe: a person who hates, fears, or scorns gay people or gay sexual orientation.

It is obvious homosexuality is a biological variance from the norm of sexuality just like dwarfism with heights of people and any other variances from the norm/majority.