That was never the argument, and of course I agree that it’s not.

I brought it up to make a point. Pleasure itself does not need to lead to problems at all. It’s only when you introduce intentional agents that such problems occur.

Exactly what I was getting at, and I think it’s something Tim should really think about.

Point taken. My original complaint was with your assertion that if our sexual organs were only for procreation, then there can’t be any pleasure. What you’re saying now is different.

That was never the argument, and of course I agree that it’s not.

“For now I want to understand the argument in its entirety and ask Tim some questions before I say anything about it.”

Fair enough.

“Heterosexuals seem to have potential for thinking beyond physical desires as well. Or am I wrong?”

Yeah, they do.

“This doesn’t imply that we cannot “intend” to take pleasure in the taste for the sake of it but that’s our intentions, not the properly functional goal of the digestive system itself. Does that make any sense?”

Exactly what I was getting at, and I think it’s something Tim should really think about.

Yes, it would be true. But this again is a bad thing as since pleasure is involved it creates all sorts of problems.

I see what you mean but I’d still say that pleasure is not intrinsically evil. Wouldn’t you agree?

His argument is pretty much since that’s not how it ‘ought’ to be, it’s immoral. Who the Hell actually thinks like that?

Honestly, I am not defending that argument. I personally have my doubts on how successful this really is so I can certainly understand where you’re coming from. For now I want to understand the argument in its entirety and ask Tim some questions before I say anything about it.

Well, not exactly. That’s just the general consensus. Sure it’s not a sure fire way of becoming smarter. But not even being necessarily homosexual, I said that it’s because they think beyond physical desires. So technically that’s the only criteria, thinking beyond physical desires.

Ah I see. But I’d be careful here because correlation does not mean causation. If for example, all the smart and popular philosophers ate some form of candy then I wouldn’t attribute their knowledge and success to candy. Heterosexuals seem to have potential for thinking beyond physical desires as well. Or am I wrong?

Just to add your argument about food(or whatever, do you think that eatings only purpose is to eat to survive? Then why does food taste good? Surly that’s another purpose of eating. If you are against homosexuality, then you are against eating because you enjoy it.

Ultimately, that is the digestive system’s purpose from a strictly natural perspective. The pleasure of food is simply an instrument or means to which the food is digested, it is not a goal or purpose in itself. This doesn’t imply that we cannot “intend” to take pleasure in the taste for the sake of it but that’s our intentions, not the properly functional goal of the digestive system itself. Does that make any sense?

Steve,

That’s an excellent concern. We need to be sure that the position we’re adopting is true to what Scripture intends to say. A major mistake like that can hurt the public’s perception. I am rather skeptical of people who try to explain passages away, however. I’ll have to see how well of a case they present there.

Also, let’s say it’s true. Let’s say what Tim says is sound, and it’s okay. What does that lead us? That god is a prick? I mean, you have this guy who creates you TO DESIRE SUCH THINGS, and then to PUNISH them for acting in the said desire? That’s sadistic.

I modified a quote from your essay: “When amputees use their organs in a way which deviates from their natural purpose, then it is immoral because it they are not functioning in a way that they should be.”

Just because an organ evolved to do one thing does not mean you can’t put it to work doing something else.

In similar ways, the church has lost credibility in the past from being dogmatic on issues such as insisting that the earth was at the centre of the solar system, or insisting on a literal 7 day creation.

Increasingly science is showing that it is perfectly natural for some people to have homosexual tendencies. This would seem to contradict your interpretation of Romans 1:26-28.

Admittedly, I haven’t done a lot of research into this, but as far as I am aware, there are interpretations of scripture that make allowance for a sexual gay relationship within the bounds of marriage. I will direct you to this site, and let you make that judgement for yourselves.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-romans-126-condemn-lesbians.html

Yes, it would be true. But this again is a bad thing as since pleasure is involved it creates all sorts of problems.

“He later gave a defense from nature that would coincide with his biblical beliefs and used that as an argument for why other people (regardless of their religion) should accept it.”

His argument is pretty much since that’s not how it ‘ought’ to be, it’s immoral. Who the Hell actually thinks like that?

“What you’re saying is, philosophers who are heterosexual would become even deeper thinkers if they became homosexual?”

Well, not exactly. That’s just the general consensus. Sure it’s not a sure fire way of becoming smarter. But not even being necessarily homosexual, I said that it’s because they think beyond physical desires. So technically that’s the only criteria, thinking beyond physical desires.

Just to add your argument about food(or whatever, do you think that eatings only purpose is to eat to survive? Then why does food taste good? Surly that’s another purpose of eating. If you are against homosexuality, then you are against eating because you enjoy it.