Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 107 of 193 (20335)
10-20-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by nator
10-20-2002 5:14 PM


[QUOTE]Schafinator on whether or not being gay is a person's rightful state: [B]Sure, why not?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
In that case, why are there two sexes?
[QUOTE][B]Can you tell me how people of who are in loving, committed relationships are a detriment to anyone in a comparable way to murderers or thieves just because they are the same gender?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've given a commentary on my analogy in the post above.
Suffice to say I don't think someone that is gay is some "bad" person like a murderer or a thief. However genetically predisposed murderers (IMO) make an excellent analogy to why just being prone to something does not necessarily make it morally acceptable.
[QUOTE][B]I have always considered something to be immoral if it is detrimental to innocents. How are gay people hurting anyone by loving each other?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Just because something is not directly hurting someone does not necessarily make that behavior morally acceptable.
Why homosexuality is immoral becomes obvious if you presuppose that
the sexes were created for a reason, and that procreation plays a role in the spiritual order of things. I'm not going to further discuss theology because you (Schrafinator) have an unfortuante tendency to belittle my beliefs but I just want to point out that you do not understand my worldview and your model of ethical values does not work in this discussion for that very reason.
A problem here is that love does not provide moral justification either.
A person could have a deep and loving relationship with another person. It could be "true love". But that person could also be married and having an affair with their "true love". In which case it would be immoral no matter how much they loved each other.
[QUOTE][B]My whole point about the Bonobos is that homosexuality is not some wierd, cultural peculiarity to some humans, but a widespread primate behavior.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
But that doesn't make it an appropriate thing for humans to do, just because it occurs in nature. As you pointed out, in nature people would have children during the pre-teen years. That doesn't make it a good idea, or morally acceptable.
[QUOTE][B]and in reality serves to strengthen bonds in the Bonobo social network.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
"Strengthening bonds" doesn't justify a behavior either. Great bonds can form in war, but that doesn't mean running around shooting people is always a moral thing to do. Gang rituals and hazings also come to mind when we talk about social bonds.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 10-20-2002 5:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:37 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 114 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 9:14 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 193 (20373)
10-21-2002 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by nator
10-19-2002 12:57 PM


quote:
That is what you have been taught, but it hasn't always been that way.
Have you read the Old Testament? A great deal of it is God promising to smite down the enemes of his chosen people. There isn't a lot about love and happiness in there.
Again; read the Old Testament and tell me how much more killing and enemy-felling there is than love.
Lets see... The OT was initially revealed to the Jews...
Now I get it. The OT is their reason for all those manslaughter and atrocities they commit to the Palestinians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 12:57 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by John, posted 10-21-2002 10:37 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 193 (20374)
10-21-2002 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by nator
10-19-2002 12:57 PM


-deleted double post
[This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 10-19-2002 12:57 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 193 (20400)
10-21-2002 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
From an evolutionary perspective, disregarding any supernatural beings, what is the purpose of sex?
To reproduce.
Ah, but you are forgetting that Bonobos and human females have sex even when they are not "in heat", or fertile, which means that there is another reason for intercourse. That other reason is to strengthen social bonds.
quote:
Why do we crave sex?
So our genes get passed on.
So why do human females crave sex at times when they aren't fertile, and why do human males find females interesting at times when the females aren't fertile?
quote:
Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.
No, it certainly IS part of the naturalistic worldview.
There are lots of mammals which display homosexual behavior. Cows mount each other when they are in heat. Cats and dogs will mount the same sex counterpart to display dominance. Bottlenose dolphins will form same-sex pairs and engage in sex.
It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.
quote:
Schrafinator's point seemed to be that it is "natural" for people to be that way. Even if she could prove it were natural it would not mean it was "right". Moral values transcend simply trying to transmit genes.
Therefore, if having a biological predisposition towards being gay makes it morally ok to be gay, being genetically predisposed to having violent episodes must make it morally ok to kill or do whatever may occur during one of those episodes.
But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?
How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.
Why do you list only things like "genetically-predisposed to murder or to be violent" in the same sentence as homosexuality?
I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."
I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.
If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature. You have got to ignore a lot of evidence to say that it isn't natural.
As a consequence, you are then left with the dilemma; God made everything, so if God made gay people that way, why are we supposed to condemn homosexuality?
quote:
Therefore, there must be more to the issue than just rather or not a person (to use Schraf's words) "is 'really' gay". That is the purpose of my analogy. And by the way, I just want to clear up the original question, that it is my opinion that they *are* actually gay, though I suspect the gay culture occasionally sweeps in 'natural' heteros from time to time.
And vice-versa.
That's because there are very few people who are "totally" gay or "totally" hetero. Most people are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, and since there is strong social pressure for most to be hetero, that is the way they live.
quote:
The "problem" with my analogy is that we have different worldviews.
Your definition of "immoral" is something that hurts someone, or perhaps, even only behaviors that hurt someone else. My definition of "immoral" is wider than that. Some behaviors can be "immoral" without hurting somebody, at least directly. I believe homosexuality is immoral, as are the other behaviors I mentioned.
If your reason for thinking so is because it says so in the Bible, then you are being selective. It's also considered an abomination to wear mixed fiber clothing and for crippled people to go to church.
[QUOTE][B]Certain behaviors, when not checked, are very bad for such associations. Homosexuality is not one of those behaviors.[/QUOTE]
quote:
Hey, I agree with that. I need to point out first that by the nature of the culture of the place where I live I'm not knowingly around people who are openly gay
I suspected as much.
I am around lots of openly-gay people, as my town is one of the few which allows same-gender partners to adopt children. I have many gay co-workers and friends.
quote:
so I can't really be sure about this, but I don't think I have anything against gay people. I don't see how they're doing anything bad to society by being the way they are. I'm not openly supporting same-sex marriage but I'm not *necessarily* against it either (open minded there). I also don't believe in the "homosexual agenda" those infuriating "Christians" talk about on the radio all the time (I actually heard one of them praise Stalin for his anti-gay policies once).
*But* I believe it is contrary to the way God would want it to be.
God doesn't want people to be in loving, comitted relationships? Didn't God make them the way they are?
quote:
Obviously there are two sexes and I don't see any way around it.
So? Sex for humans isn't only about reproduction, otherwise we wouldn't have the ability to respond sexually when we aren't fertile.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-21-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:55 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 193 (20403)
10-21-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:32 PM


quote:
"Strengthening bonds" doesn't justify a behavior either. Great bonds can form in war, but that doesn't mean running around shooting people is always a moral thing to do. Gang rituals and hazings also come to mind when we talk about social bonds.
Come on, Gene. Social bonding and cooperation is considered to be one of the most important reasons humans ever became as successful as they did.
The reason bonds form in war is not because of the shooting, but because of the coming together against a common foe.
It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.
It is clear that you have decided ahead of time that your church's teaching is correct and nothing will ever make you think otherwise. It is a lot like talking to a very intellectually-nimble brick wall.
BTW, can I assume that you concede that the LDS statement on homosexuality doesn't actually say that gay people are "naturally-gay"?
Also, I am sorry that you equate criticism of LDS church policies with belittling them. Quite the contrary; if they weren't so influential I woulnd't bother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:32 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:03 PM nator has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 193 (20404)
10-21-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Andya Primanda
10-21-2002 5:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
quote:
That is what you have been taught, but it hasn't always been that way.
Have you read the Old Testament? A great deal of it is God promising to smite down the enemes of his chosen people. There isn't a lot about love and happiness in there.
Again; read the Old Testament and tell me how much more killing and enemy-felling there is than love.
Lets see... The OT was initially revealed to the Jews...
Now I get it. The OT is their reason for all those manslaughter and atrocities they commit to the Palestinians.

The scary part about your comment is that it is essentially true. The Bible does give the Jews permission to kill and enslave anyone non-Jewish.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-21-2002 5:56 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 113 of 193 (20405)
10-21-2002 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
10-17-2002 4:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind.
Far from their minds and far from reality are two different things. I have seen many animals which play with their offspring.
quote:
I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma. At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution. Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population.
And I have seen or heard many of the comments by these "mainstream" people that you refer to that indicate to me that they understand neither science in general nor evolution via NS in specific. Besides, science is not a popularity contest.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-17-2002 4:37 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 114 of 193 (20425)
10-21-2002 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:32 PM


Was thinking about this and realized I have a point to make about it...
quote:
A problem here is that love does not provide moral justification either.
A person could have a deep and loving relationship with another person. It could be "true love". But that person could also be married and having an affair with their "true love". In which case it would be immoral no matter how much they loved each other.
I would agree with you that this is an immoral act because an innocent (the spouse being cheated on) is being deceived and betrayed, and therefore injured.
This is not what I was talking about when I asked you if you held love as a value.
I do not think that love is an excuse for hurting and betraying others, which is how you have portrayed it in your example above.
I am talking about two unattached people falling in love and wanting to make a life together, and those two people happen to be of the same gender.
I have yet to hear a satisfactory justification for an anti-gay stance by any Christian group.
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:32 PM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 193 (20448)
10-22-2002 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Because just because someone is genetically predisposed to a behavior
does not make that behavior "natural" to them.

I am interested in knowing what you consider "natural" in that case.
quote:
I'm waiting on your side to show that it is.
This is interesting. It seem to be a request that the side making the iconoclastic claim provide the evidence. What is interesting is the assumption that Schraf and I are making the iconoclastic claim. I think you'd be hared pressed to back that up. Many human cultures have incorporated homosexuality into the social order.
quote:
From an evolutionary perspective, disregarding any supernatural beings, what is the purpose of sex?
To reproduce.

This is an oversimplification. Think about that next time your wife says "Ride 'em Cowboy"
Look around. Sex is everywhere. Do you really think all that is about making babies?
quote:
Why do we crave sex?
So our genes get passed on.

Fair enough. However, there are more roles to play than that of breeders. Again, you are oversimplifying the issue.
Humans are not brute force survivors. We don't lay thousands of eggs so that several survive. We make a very few offspring and take care of them well. We do that within the structure of a society, and not everyone has to be a sperm donor or an egg factory/incubator.
quote:
Homosexuality is an aberration of that.
Except that homosexuality DOES exist in nature. We ARE nature, Gene.
quote:
It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.

It has been around a very long time and the race isn't dying off. This should make you wonder about the validity of your argument.
Homosexuality could be due to the extreme similarity of the sexes. It could be that it provides some positive social bonding. It could be that it simply isn't harmful.
[quote][b]Even if she could prove it were natural it would not mean it was "right". Moral values transcend simply trying to transmit genes.[/quote]
[/b]
I suppose moral values would have to be different from gene transmission. Gene transmission is amoral.
quote:
I don't see it as a false analogy because, like same-sex marriages, they are not allowed by the church.
The issue is not whether the church allows murder and rape but whether murder and rape are the same class of behavior as homosexuality.
quote:
Therefore, if having a biological predisposition towards being gay makes it morally ok to be gay, being genetically predisposed to having violent episodes must make it morally ok to kill or do whatever may occur during one of those episodes.
I am not arguing that genetic predisposition makes a behavior acceptable. Shraf perhaps, is making that argument. (I do, however, argue against the idea that homosexuality is not natural.)
quote:
The "problem" with my analogy is that we have different worldviews.
Certainly, in part. But do you truly believe that male/male sex or female/female sex is an crime equivalent to murder?
quote:
But the problem is that I can never prove to you that homosexuality is immoral
You could if you had evidence for the belief.
quote:
The purpose of this analogy was just to demonstrate that a genetic predisposition cannot be used to justify being gay.
Nor can the concept of natural vs. unnatural be used to condemn homosexuality.
quote:
Taken in that context I fail to see how it is flawed. Please re-examine it and comment further in future posts. On to the next point.
quote:
*But* I believe it is contrary to the way God would want it to be. Obviously there are two sexes and I don't see any way around it.
No need to get around it. Its just that most of the time whether one sports an in-ie or an out-ie makes no difference. The only time it does matter is when reproduction is desired. Ten -- ok, if you're a guy, twenty minutes-- before and five seconds after, it makes no difference what your sexual preference happens to be.
quote:
Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.

Can't really argue here.
[quote]It is easy for some of you here on this board to show tolerance towards a minority of society like homosexuals and at the same time show intolerance towards the LDS church (or whoever) because they don't share the same worldview as they do.[/b][/quote]
I try to play fair.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 2:57 AM John has replied
 Message 133 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:25 PM John has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 116 of 193 (20449)
10-22-2002 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by John
10-22-2002 2:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:

Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.

Can't really argue here.

While theology is a package deal, if that package contains illegal or immoral chapters then it should be criticised and a lot worse. Note, I am not saying that the LDS church does anything immoral or illegal. I don't know enough about it, however just because the 'bad' parts for part of a package with many 'good' parts in no way makes the 'bad' parts acceptable.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by John, posted 10-22-2002 2:29 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by John, posted 10-22-2002 9:13 AM compmage has replied
 Message 120 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 10:11 AM compmage has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 193 (20477)
10-22-2002 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by compmage
10-22-2002 2:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
While theology is a package deal, if that package contains illegal or immoral chapters then it should be criticised and a lot worse.
Yeah, I agree. I should have been more clear with my response. What I can't argue with is the idea that people do get to choose. The LDS is not some Leviathan that can force its will on people.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 2:57 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 11:02 AM John has not replied

  
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 193 (20479)
10-22-2002 9:35 AM


Since homosexualism 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
Sure, Ive heard heard about the argument that , if they dont hurt anyone , then its fine.
Or, look at the bonobos, they do it!
Firstly, it doesnt only effect you, it effects society.
The children for example doesnt know what roles the two sexes are supposed to have and their judgement will be very confused when they grow up.
Whatever "pleasure" the gay pair will have will never justify the act, a cleptoman may enjoy himself when he steals, but that wont justify the act, a pair stealing a childs judgement by their direct or indirect influence will never justify the act.
And secondly, we arent bonobos, no matter how much some of us would want it.
We can understand right from wrong, we know that children arent made that way, bonobos dont.
Think about this, before we knew how to make fire, we ate raw meat, we perhaps ate plants we were allergic to or we perhaps died by lack of hygien.
Now we know what is good for us but we dont consider the soap unnatural, or cocked food unnatural, or clothes unnatural or medicine unnatural.
Well this reply wasn`t made to insult noone, but merely to bring the discussion at another perspective.
Sincerely Delshad

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by John, posted 10-22-2002 10:09 AM Delshad has not replied
 Message 121 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 10:36 AM Delshad has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 193 (20484)
10-22-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Delshad
10-22-2002 9:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Since homosexualism 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
I do not believe that the evidence to back up this claim even exists.
quote:
Firstly, it doesnt only effect you, it effects society.
Yes, I feel great pain every time a gay couple kisses-- even though I can't see them, hear them, or smell them.
quote:
The children for example doesnt know what roles the two sexes are supposed to have and their judgement will be very confused when they grow up.
What roles are the two sexes supposed to have? Human society is VERY flexible. Social roles are mutable as all get-out. Read some cultural anthropology. Culture creates those roles. Culture can change them. In other words, there is nothing except culture that makes homosexuality distasteful. More cultures than not-- outside of the Judeo-Christian traditions, of course-- incorporate the behavior.
Secondly, the "confused children" argument has never been supported by any scientific study.
quote:
Whatever "pleasure" the gay pair will have will never justify the act
... implicit assumption that the act needs to be justified.
quote:
a pair stealing a childs judgement by their direct or indirect influence
You realize that ANY parental influence qualifies as "stealing a child's judgement"? Children are like little Borg--- they assimilate. It is how humans adapt and survive. You undercut the entire survival strategy.
quote:
And secondly, we arent bonobos, no matter how much some of us would want it.
Of course we are not bonobos, but we are damn similar. Do you also object to the comparison of lions and tigers?
quote:
We can understand right from wrong, we know that children arent made that way, bonobos dont.
How do you know what bonobos understand? And how do you know how we are made? If I could prove that we are made that way via genetic study, would you then accept it? Doubtful. Hence, you may want to rethink the argument.
quote:
Think about this, before we knew how to make fire, we ate raw meat, we perhaps ate plants we were allergic to or we perhaps died by lack of hygien.
Now we know what is good for us but we dont consider the soap unnatural, or cocked food unnatural, or clothes unnatural or medicine unnatural.

True enough. But it serves my purposes, not yours. This paragraph undercuts some of the arguments you made above.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 9:35 AM Delshad has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 120 of 193 (20485)
10-22-2002 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by compmage
10-22-2002 2:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:

Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.

Can't really argue here.

While theology is a package deal, if that package contains illegal or immoral chapters then it should be criticised and a lot worse. Note, I am not saying that the LDS church does anything immoral or illegal. I don't know enough about it, however just because the 'bad' parts for part of a package with many 'good' parts in no way makes the 'bad' parts acceptable.

Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 2:57 AM compmage has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 193 (20490)
10-22-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Delshad
10-22-2002 9:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Since homosexualism 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
Since being a Muslim 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
Morality has NOTHING to do with if something is natural or not. Morality is made up by humans and always has been.
quote:
Sure, Ive heard heard about the argument that , if they dont hurt anyone , then its fine.
Or, look at the bonobos, they do it!
Firstly, it doesnt only effect you, it effects society.
The children for example doesnt know what roles the two sexes are supposed to have and their judgement will be very confused when they grow up.
Um, first of all, the idea that a child with two parents of the same gender will be confused about who are boys and who are girls is not established at all, nor will they necesarily be gay. Most gay children come from traditional hetero families, don't they, so this doesn't fit. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Second of all, what do gender roles and sexual preference have to do with each other?
quote:
Whatever "pleasure" the gay pair will have will never justify the act, a cleptoman may enjoy himself when he steals,
Yet another comparison of homosexuality with the crime of theft. How and why people equate them, I don't understand.
quote:
but that wont justify the act, a pair stealing a childs judgement by their direct or indirect influence will never justify the act.
Not sure what you mean here...
quote:
And secondly, we arent bonobos, no matter how much some of us would want it.
LOL! Never said we should want to be Bonobos. They ARE our closest relatives and are very much like us, socially, physically, and genetically, so therefore they are useful subjects of study for comparison.
quote:
We can understand right from wrong, we know that children arent made that way, bonobos dont.
Saying that "children aren't made that way" is a very bold statement considering that very little formal research on the genetic basis of homosexuality has been done. Tell me, what research are you relying on when you make this statement?
"Right from wrong" is a human construct and is defined differently all around the world.
quote:
Think about this, before we knew how to make fire, we ate raw meat,
We still eat raw meat. Carpaccio? Sushi?
quote:
we perhaps ate plants we were allergic to or we perhaps died by lack of hygien.
Now we know what is good for us but we dont consider the soap unnatural, or cocked food unnatural, or clothes unnatural or medicine unnatural.
...or homosexuality unnatural.
You still haven't given any reason at all why homosexuality is either harmful or unnatural. [/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 9:35 AM Delshad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 2:14 PM nator has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024