“Joy...you are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong/bad/disordered.
When asked how you came to your conclusion, you claim “nature”. This is where I believe you are being dishonest. I believe you came to your conclusion based on a holy book.”

You would be wrong. And once again because you fail to understand the natural law argument. Once again, it is not about that which we can find in nature!

“It may, or may not benefit you to access information outside your bias.”

Right back at ya.

“Perhaps examine why the Koran holds no sway over you.”

Way ahead of you. Been there. Done that.

@Whitefire 13

Morality is that which is in one's best interest? Does't that sound a bit familiar? Does to me. It's called 'ethical egoism'. On the face of it a very unchristian position.. Not surprising, christianity is at base an utterly selfish faith. The faithful do positive good or avoid negative (wrong) actions for reward IE the reward of heaven or avoidance of hell.

The best concept of moral good I've ever seen is from Buddhist , a belief system which seeks to destroy ego. The teaching is that the moral man does good for its own sake .

My own natural bent is moral relativism, which avoids moral absolutes. Arguments of exceptions do not negate principle. Eg There is one exception which springs readily to mind; child rape.

The old testament is full of exceptions to absolute morality; for the individual, incest and rape (not rape if it's a slave) For god himself; punishing all of humanity, forever, because of the sins of two people. (Adam and Eve) The sadistic cruelty towards Job and Abraham . The punishing of the entire Egyptian people because of the recalcitrance of their Pharaoh . Finally, of course, the genocide of the Flood, saving Noah and his family out of all humanity .

There is also an excellent filmed play, called "God On Trial" .Set in Auschwitz, a group of Jewish men who know they are to die the next day put god on trial. The charge: That in allowing the Holocaust, god has broken the Abrahamic covenant: Genesis 12-15

12 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”[b]"

In my daily life, ideally, I look at the common good as the basis for morality. It is not based some vague , dishonest notion of what is 'natural' . I therefore consider laws/beliefs demonising sexual preferences, identification and practice which do not harm others as callous, cruel and hateful .

In daily life, I must admit I tend to behave on the basis of self interest mostly. It is my opinion that most of humanity acts the same way, mostly. That for most people moral beliefs tend to act as an ideal rather than for daily use.. I recognise there are altruistic acts, many, many, many, daily. However, I have never met or read about a fully altruistic person. Yes, every now and then I have been guilty of an altruistic act, as have just about every person I've ever known.
.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

"Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others.

Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do; e.g. in the long term, the fulfillment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasure, then, takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the words of James Rachels, "Ethical egoism ... endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."[2]

Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of right-libertarianism and individualist anarchism.[3] These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism-

Harming the interests of others (such as their sexual preferences and practices) is NOT moral within this framework

"egoism "as a moral principle is a pretty big topic.

My reference:

"Milo: Egoism and altruism (Basic problems in philosophy series)" Ronald D Milo.

From the Devil's Dictionary . " Christian: One who believes that the New Testament isa divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin"

I don't condemn Christians or anyone else for being hypocrites, This because it is a life observation that hypocrisy is part of the human condition. Such actions do not necessarily define the individual,-----how can we possibly tell when they do?

@Kevin Levites

I'm inclined to agree, as a rule of thumb, a pile of burning books makes me very uneasy, regardless of what's in them.

It also occurs to me that the kind of bigoted homophobic paranoia espoused by religious people like Joy, is hardly likely to be lessened by censoring them, and their ilk.

Sadly one of the unpleasant core concepts of religious indoctrination is that human morality is best served not by empathising with other humans, but by first and foremost trying to please an imaginary deity, with blind adherence to bronze age morality, or at best cherry picking through it.

Whenever I read this bigoted garbage that Joy is espousing I am always minded to ask, does she eat shell fish, stone unruly children, wear blended fabrics, or eat crops that have been grown on land adjacent to other crops. All of which represent some of the more bizarre things the bible rules are moral or immoral.

It usually becomes pretty obvious that religious bigots like Joy are cherry picking bits of the bible to feed their existing prejudices.

Amazon. It won't take orders on it, and they removed the ebook.

Is it still possible to get the book?

Yes. But in a very roundabout, convoluted manner by going to obscure, questionable websites that don't have Amazon's credibility or trustworthiness. See below from NBC news:

NBC News
Amazon removes controversial books by 'father of conversion therapy'

See below link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nbcnews...

Don't get me wrong . . . I think that the book is rightfully discredited, and can do some real harm.

But . . . I can buy a book on Amazon that gives me instructions for creating methamphetamine in my garage.

I don't like double-standards.

Thank you for the support and the validation.

I generally regard the "slippery slope" mentality as a fallacy . . . but at the risk of sounding like (or actually being) a hypocrite, I get concerned about any censorship, as it seems to feed on itself and expand.

In the end, there are massive book burnings . . . government control of thought . . . and horrible tragedies like the burning of the great Alexandria Library in antiquity.

We know the there were about 4 to 5 million books or so at it's height, and only about 10,000 survived to this day.

We know that Sophocles wrote about 123 plays, and only 8 exist today.

We lost works by Alexander the Great, Democritis, Hippocrates, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoros, Euclid, Hypatia, and so on.

Incalculable loss to humanity!!!

A huge stash of these books was discovered in early Muslim times, and the Caliph (who was involved in the situation) said "Burn them. If they agree with the Koran, then they are superfluous. If they disagree with the Koran, then they are heretical and blasphemous. So burn them."

If the library had survived, then maybe we wouldn't have had the "dark ages" of medieval Europe for 1,000 years.

I agree 100%.

The irony of banning books seems work in reverse, as people seem to want to get their hands on something that's forbidden.