Originally posted by MaxVel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers
Collapse
X
-
"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostGay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostGay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSo what you're saying that maybe, someday, in the far future, gays and lesbians will be selected for? I doubt it, since there's more heterosexuals than gay couples, and gay men don't appear to be sperm donors any more frequently than straight men."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostEven than, he seems to ignore that it could end up costing a boat load of money and you may never get anywhere. There isn't too many people that have thousands of dollars to drop on a procedure that might not even work (success rates are about 10-20%, with a cost of 300-500 dollars each try). The men would also need to find a women willing to carry their baby for them too (that could also end up costing a bundle too).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI guess, in principle (for the sake of charity here) you could imagine a streamline, automated, impregnation booth... even then I don't think it'd select for gays more often than straights, or even comparably."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostGay couples currently have children regularly by surrogacy, and nothing stops gay men being sperm donors and thus fathering potentially large numbers of children. In 5-10 years time, when artificial reproductive technology is a little more advanced, gay couples will be able to have children where both the couple are biological parents. It seems to me that the "they don't reproduce" argument, insofar as it is even any kind of argument at all, lacks factual merit....>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostThat seems more than somewhat irrelevant to the claim that homosexuality arose via natural selection, and confers a survival benefit on society, and is therefore moral and something we should actively support through legislation and social approval."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSounds like a pretty wacky argument, and isn't one I've ever seen any gay-rights advocates make.
AFAICT that's pretty much the outcome of Tassman's view of morality. The moral values we have are a result of natural selection: societies and groups that hold these values tend to survive better. So what is moral is what has survived the process of natural selection.
You argued that homosexuality is (now, or soon) no barrier to reproductive success - so on that level it must be 'normal' and therefore 'moral' as well. Right?...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostAFAICT that's pretty much the outcome of Tassman's view of morality. The moral values we have are a result of natural selection: societies and groups that hold these values tend to survive better. So what is moral is what has survived the process of natural selection.
In my estimation natural selection has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.
I'm pretty sure I recall from the 20+ page thread on morality in Apologetics that Tassman and I were in fairly strong agreement on the subject of morality. We both held the view that morality is primarily about treating others well. In a post there that he Amen'ed I said "I, like most other secular people these days, simply use the words "good" and "right" to refer to benevolent actions and the words "wrong" and "evil" to refer to malevolent actions". He can obviously speak for himself though.
You argued that homosexuality is (now, or soon) no barrier to reproductive success - so on that level it must be 'normal' and therefore 'moral' as well. Right?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSounds like a pretty wacky argument, and isn't one I've ever seen any gay-rights advocates make.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joel View PostWhat do you mean "end of story"? You didn't address what I said at all. So you state what is the current legal status; that doesn't mean it is therefore equal. If that logic worked then when there was only opposite-sex marriage one could have responded to complaints of inequality by saying "That's the current legal status/definition. End of story." How is that reasonable or relevant to the question of whether it's equal?
The current state of the law is unequal. If all 50 states issue same-sex marriage licenses, that state of the law will be merely differently unequal.
I was talking about a moral right, which is being violated by that part of the Civil Rights Act. The existence or absence of that law is irrelevant. My position is that the moral right does indeed include a broad freedom of choice, and whether you are choosing friends or choosing whom to buy to or sell from makes no difference.
Your "above" didn't address what I said at all.
You merely state something the Civil Rights Act does.
That has nothing to do with what equality before the law means.
It does nothing to show whether that that law is (un)just or (un)equal.
It does nothing to show whether the absence of that law would be a state of inequality before the law (As I have shown, it isn't.)
Indeed. That's my point. You didn't care about Darth's reasoning or analysis. You evidently rejected what he said not based on Darth's reasoning or analysis, but based on his being an authority or not. As if the proposition should be accepted or rejected based on Darth's position of authority, rather than from any reasoning or analysis. If reasoning and analysis is what matters, then whether Darth is in a position of authority doesn't matter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
No it isn't assuming any such thing. Things can be abnormal and still have a function. Reproduction is a byproduct of the pairing our species typically engages in, and more often than not, the non-transitory pairings ends up in reproduction. The vast majority of human pairings are opposite-sex within the reproductive years, therefore the "normal" expression is fertile opposite sex pairings.
Homosexual pairings are abnormal.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx
They exist so what are you going to do about them; stone them or integrate them into society? I suggest the latter.
Infertile pairings are also abnormal.
But, please remember that "normal" and "moral" are not the same things.
Along that line, Homosexual conduct itself is also abnormal because it can never truly approximate the complete spectrum of human opposite-sex sexual behavior. It can approximate sexual arousal and stimulation as well as social bonding, but can't complete the "normal" trifecta with reproduction.Which is an abnormal use of the tongue. Again, abnormal can still serve a function though.
Again, abnormal from a "purpose" standpoint.But it's abnormal to do so from a sexual function standpoint.
Comment
-
Homosexual pairings are less common but, according to mental health professionals throughout the world both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality.
Given that we have evolved as social animals, ...
Again you are assuming that the only purpose of marriage is for the specific purpose of reproduction
Marriage is built around sex. Its the solemn promise for two people to stay together, to be able to have children.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
51 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
6 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:23 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
101 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
107 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
156 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment