John C. Wright #fundie

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

When I was an atheist, I came to the conclusion that homosexuality was illogical. One need only look at the shape of the sex organs to see that they have an innate purpose to them, and there is no moral code, not even the most liberal or liberatarian, which does not contain a tacit appeal to the innate purposes of things for moral authority. An atheist can rightly conclude that a sex act which does not involve sex is illogical. An atheist can conclude that the nature of reason is such that to defy reason is to defy goodness: that is it morally wrong to be illogical, for the same reason to tell lies is wrong. From this comes the conclusion that homosexual acts, because illogical, are therefore morally wrong.

63 comments

old comment by

One purpose of sex is to seek pleasure and on that basis it's perfectly logical for someone to seek that pleasure in a multitude of ways. You want to talk about illogical? It's illogical to have sex with someone you're not attracted to and spend this one life we have, being unhappy because dingbats like you usd half-baked arguments to try and tell people that they shouldn't be with who they want to. There's nothing wrong with having sex with another consenting adult and you have no basis to say otherwise. What this all boils down to is that you have the; "Eww, it's icky," mentality and, for some idiotic reason, you think that provides you the justification to try and make people unhappy.

old comment by John

When I was a carnivore, I came to the conclusion that scrambled eggs were illogical. One need only look at the shape of an egg to see that it has an innate purpose to it, and there is no moral code, not even the most liberal or libertarian, which does not contain a tacit appeal to the innate purposes of things for moral authority. A carnivore can rightly conclude that an egg which does not involve the birth of a chicken is illogical. A carnivore can conclude that the nature of reason is such that to defy reason is to defy goodness: that is it morally wrong to be illogical, for the same reason to tell lies is wrong. From this comes the conclusion that eating scrambled eggs, because illogical, is therefore morally wrong.

Same stupid reasoning.

old comment by Zimmer

LOL WUT

Oh and BTW this is the opening paragraph in that link:

"I don’t think it is necessary to defend the idea that there are honest and virtuous atheists. Unlike Leftists, there is nothing innately wicked or innately dishonest in their core values or basic assumptions which require them necessarily to support and defend wickedness, lies, indecency and cruelty."

John C. Wright, you can go get fucked, but in a way that doesn't involve fucking.

EDIT: And later on in the comments, he resorts to presuppositional apologetics to defend himself! Anyone interested in why this is horseshit should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1B7CECF5AA27F03&feature=plcp

old comment by Zagen30

Nice straw vulcan you've set set up there. Too bad atheists aren't so slavishly devoted to logic that they automatically reject anything even the slightest bit illogical, or else your argument may have had some shred of truth.

Here's how I look at the situation logically:

Not everyone's brain chemistry is the same, as evidenced by the wide variance in sexual appetites and attractions. This extends to some people being attracted to members of the same sex. If two of those people are attracted to each other and like each other, it follows that they would likely want to have sex with each other. Whether or not where they're putting various bodily parts is where those parts were "intended" to go doesn't really bother me.

Oh, and heterosexuals perform basically all the sex acts that homosexuals do. But of course the fundies conveniently forget that whenever they bring up the "immorality" of gay sex.

old comment by Sasha

that is it morally wrong to be illogical, for the same reason to tell lies is wrong

Logic or the lack of it has nothing to do with morality. A lie can be logically structured, but it is still immoral. A criminal can go about their actions very logically and methodically, but crime is still immoral.

Atheists (including myself) structure their morality around the concept of the Golden Rule. I don't want to be harmed, therefore I don't harm other people. I don't want to be lied to, therefore I don't lie. This has little to do with logic and a LOT to do with empathy, which most fundies seem to be lacking.

Sexual attraction is completely illogical in many cases, but that doesn't make it morally wrong, anymore than it's wrong to prefer strawberry ice cream over chocolate chip.

there is no moral code, not even the most liberal or liberatarian, which does not contain a tacit appeal to the innate purposes of things for moral authority

Moral authority is not based on "the innate purposes of things," but on the greater good for humanity. By the "innate purpose" argument, one could say that guns are designed to kill people, so killing people is moral. Human sexuality is clearly designed to give pleasure, and homosexuals seem to be having as much fun with sex as heterosexuals; by your own argument, then, homosexual acts are morally correct.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

"...there is no moral code, not even the most liberal or liberatarian, which does not contain a tacit appeal to the innate purposes of things for moral authority."

Except for, you know, practically all of them. To be more specific, utilitarianism, which holds that actions are moral if they produce the most good; virtue ethics, which define moral actions as those taken by virtuous people; natural rights theories, which hold as immoral only actions which violate another's natural rights; contract theories, which focus on actions taken within a society as moral in abiding by the society's implicit social contract; the list goes on. In fact, I find it difficult to recall a single moral philosopher who argued for morality by appealing to "the innate purposes of things." I doubt you could name one either.

"An atheist can conclude that the nature of reason is such that to defy reason is to defy goodness: that is it morally wrong to be illogical, for the same reason to tell lies is wrong."

Perhaps, but you have done absolutely nothing to persuade me (or, I suspect, anyone reading your post at all) of this. If you think simply claiming that you were once an atheist and that you believed X is enough to convince me, as an atheist, that I should likewise believe X, you insult my intelligence.

I think you were once a stupid atheist, and are now a stupid Christian. Stupidity knows no religion, or lack thereof.

old comment by farpadokly

That's not how we establish what's moral or immoral. We do that by looking at the consequences of acts, at whether they lead to suffering.
Man is not entirely a rational animal. He sometimes acts in irrational ways. But he has a rational component, along with his intuitive and emotional content. Both are important to make a whole person.
Since homosexual relationships and sex acts can occur without harm or suffering to anyone, but, on the contrary, with an increase in well-being and fulfilment of the parties involved, we conclude that they are not immoral, and further, that they are not anyone else's business.
By "a sex act which does not involve sex" I presume you mean a sex act which does not involve procreation or impregnation. It isn't illogical if you can realize the basic fact that procreation is only one function of sex. Other functions are; To create a bond in a relationship, to release stress, to gain pleasure.

old comment by Swede

If you were ever an atheist, I was a swan.

So, you're all for anal sex, then. A male sex organ fits perfectly fine there. Where does sex begin and end? What is to not involve sex? To me sex is an act were you're very close and give each other pleasure. If it's not pleasurable, it's very poor sex.

You fail to explain how the shape of the organs make gay sex illogical. Gay nipples have the same shape as straight nipples, a gay “willie” has the same shape as a straight “willie”, the same is true for other body parts involved in sex (ALL body parts, in other words). AND, the prostate gland is hard to reach without a male outie-part in a male innie-part. The innate purpose of love is to care for each other, give each other pleasure and make each other’s life better. This is just as logical whether your partner is man, woman, both or neither.

Adblocker not detected

Please install a browser add-on that blocks ads and other malicious scripts in your browser to protect your security and privacy. Learn more

uBlock Origin for Firefox, Google Chrome, and Microsoft Edge
1Blocker for Apple Safari
AdAway for Android

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

63 comments

Confused?