You'll want to PM a mod about that. But I would venture it's his raging homophobia, and his idea that women should risk their lives to carry a pregnancy to term in case it can maybe save the fetus, that were deemed too regressive and offensive. Just my speculation though.
I am of course not saying abortion must be illegal even when the woman's health is in danger. That would be ridiculous. Or that the woman must be kept alive by any means even if there is no actual way for the fetus to survive, that would be ridiculous too, and a fanatical interpretation of the fundamental right to live.
From what he seems to have said, I don't think he wants women to risk their lives for the life of the fetus.
Yeah, he only simply expressed his views that a large section of the population doing acts that harm absolutely no one is "immoral". What's wrong with that? >_>
You can perform an immoral act that doesn't harm anyone else. I could, for instance, steal $1 from a millionaire without him ever noticing, but it's still immoral.
The subsequent physical (or emotional) harm shouldn't be the standard by which we judge the ethics of an action. There are tons of examples where immoral actions have no discernible negative consequences.
They'll be OK if they are the liberal types who cherry pick just a bit more than the bigoted types who cherry pick a bit less (but still do cherry picking, since most of them still eat shellfish or don't think it's immoral to do so, for some reason).
A Christian that doesn't eat shellfish isn't cherry-picking the Bible, but that's not something I want to explain in detail in this thread.
The point I'm making is that you seem to be intolerant of what the vast majority of Christians and Muslims believe. You don't have to agree with it, but supporting the silencing of these views is incredibly regressive in that it doesn't foster an atmosphere of dialogue.
Like, if you cite Biblical scriptures that support slavery or rape to promote your pro-slavery or pro-rape POV, or you'll probably get banned, too. If you cite Biblical scriptures to say "I believe in God and Jesus is a cool dude", you'll probably be OK.
Expressing bigoted beliefs is frowned upon on GAF and often bannable, whether they are sourced in religion, political ideology, pseudo-science, or whatever else.
The immorality of chattel slavery and rape are widely accepted as being immoral, and we have well-developed arguments (spanning centuries, in fact) for why we take these acts to be immoral. One would have to provide some ethical arguments for why chattel slavery and rape are ethical.
In the case of homosexual relationships, there are well-established philosophical traditions that span many centuries (if not millennia) that have their arguments against the practice. In fact, the vast majority of the human race finds something intuitively wrong with the practice. I honestly think it's an issue worth discussing.
He wants to deny civil rights to gay people. How is this not bigotry?
Did he say he wanted to deny civil rights, or did he say that he believed in the immorality of certain actions? If the said the latter then it's up to his debate opponents to show that he's doing the former.
There's no such thing as ethics based in "biological faculties". It's 100% made-up bullshit.
Nah, actually it's a pretty respectable view in ethical theory (Aristotelian naturalism/Natural law ethics). Just calling it bullshit doesn't make it go away.
I am a Christian. I don't believe that homosexual sex is immoral.
Stop trying to use my religion as a shield for bigotry. Get your own religion.
Was the Apostle Paul a bigot? Should he have gotten his own religion?
