Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill Snedden · 06-09-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
Not just procreation, but autonomy, capability, stability and suitability.

I'm unable to determine the context of your statement:

Autonomous from what? Capable of what? Stable as compared to...? Suitable for what?

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
It�s hardly irrelevant if you�re a sexually molested child, or a raped woman. This demonstrates that sexual attraction to an object isn�t self evident. Women are rarely pedophiles or rapists, so sexual attraction as a ethical norm may suit men, but certainly not women or children.

Sexual attraction doesn't determine moral status. Agreed. Please recognize this principle is neutral to both positions.

Pedophilia/rape are irrelevant to this discussion. Please endeavor to stay on topic!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr Rick · 06-09-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
No, I could care less if someone's gay, lesbian or bisexual.

You really could care less, but you don't. In fact, you could care a lot less, but you don't.

You really care a lot, an awful lot. You care that some people do things that you will not. You hate and fear sexual freedom, and will twist anything on this thread and others from HIV to breast cancer to abortion to rants about the "nuclear family" and "ethical forms" to rationalize it.

You care very much about other people's sex lives.

Skip the bullshiting, dk, you're not very good at it; dude, you can't even get the wording right

miss djax · 06-09-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
From what I've read there's no evidence that hiv/aids was present in any high risk population more than 50 years ago. Today the most virulent strain is HIV-1C (3rd World). We in the West appear to believe time is on our side, and new medications will keep pace with the evolving threat until a vaccine is discovered. Its probably not a good bet. I lost faith in the Gay Right Movement when gay men celebrated HAART treatments by taking off the gloves to infect a new generation of gay proteges. I personally am at loss to explain how this was allowed to happened.

You still miss the point. You are assuming that teen-aged HIV sero-conversions happen by adult gay men. Your own evidence does not support that.

If you reference the Rolling Stones article, I call shenanigans. It's been all but retracted.

Miss Djax

miss djax · 06-09-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
You have no idea how low the probability that he will even address his own points, let alone yours...

Don't worry though, he will either repeat the same baseless assertions, fallacious arguments, etc...in this thread again soon, or he'll move to another thread to spam in...

typical, i guess.

here's a question for you, dk..

how do you explain the fact that homosexuals come from heterosexual families, with male and female forms intact? Under the covenant of marriage, blah blah blah.

And when the gay gene is uncovered once and for all, how will that impact your worldview??

miss djax

dk · 06-09-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by miss djax
typical, i guess.
here's a question for you, dk..
how do you explain the fact that homosexuals come from heterosexual families, with male and female forms intact? Under the covenant of marriage, blah blah blah.
And when the gay gene is uncovered once and for all, how will that impact your worldview??
miss djax

I don't have an answer miss djax. Why do you think women are rarely rapists or pedophiles?

winstonjen · 06-09-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
I don't have an answer miss djax. Why do you think women are rarely rapists or pedophiles?

According to you, is it 'because they're not men'?

dk · 06-09-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by miss djax
You still miss the point. You are assuming that teen-aged HIV sero-conversions happen by adult gay men. Your own evidence does not support that.

If you reference the Rolling Stones article, I call shenanigans. It's been all but retracted.

Miss Djax

I don't assume anything, 20 years ago hiv wasn't a problem in high schools, today it is. 40 years ago people thought contagious diseases were no threat. Societies, nations and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems that arise in time, and nobody knows what problems time might bring. Insoluable problems ruin societies, nations and civilizations. You figure it out, its not rocket science.

HelenM · 06-09-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
dk: I don't have an answer miss djax. Why do you think women are rarely rapists or pedophiles?

According to you, is it 'because they're not men'?

Maybe it's because they're not losers!

dk · 06-09-2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
I'm unable to determine the context of your statement:

Autonomous from what? Capable of what? Stable as compared to...? Suitable for what?
dk The US is a nation of people that immigrated as nuclear families from around the world, establishing the nuclear family as autonomous. Capable means able to overcome obstacles. Stable means in control. Suitable means suitable to human nature.

Bill Snedden Sexual attraction doesn't determine moral status. Agreed. Please recognize this principle is neutral to both positions. Pedophilia/rape are irrelevant to this discussion. Please endeavor to stay on topic!
dk I don't think we agree, its certainly not nuetral to anyone that's been raped or sexually molested. Women are rarely rapists or pedophiles, and that undermines the concept of homosexuality all together. I don't see how we can arrive at an ethical form if we must start with an irrational concept.

Fr.Andrew · 06-09-2003, 05:24 PM

(Bill Snedden): Well, from the standpoint of normative ethics, I can't agree with this. While "Being albino" may be comparable to "being homosexual", "being albino" doesn't involve any actions or interactions with other human beings. As a result, it's normative ethical status is essentially moot.
And while "being homosexual" may also not involve any necessary actions (and therefore also have a moot normative ethical status), there are actions that are generally associated with "homosexuality" (relationships, sexual contact, etc). It is these actions that are the province of normative ethics and the reason why it does make sense to ask about their ethical status.
All of which is another reason why I think it makes sense to concentrate this thread on sexual contact rather than orientation...

(Fr Andrew): I know doodly about normative ethics, but I agree with what you say...that if one considers homosexuality in terms of its physical manifestation, then it makes sense to discuss its ethical ramifications.
But I think it serves a useful purpose to distinguish between homosexuality...and homosexual behavior--because by confusing the two we perpetuate a popular, and harmful, misconception--i.e., that sexual orientation is something we can control.

Perhaps if meritocrat would say what he/she had in mind by "homosexuality" when he/she posed the question in the OP.
Orientation...or behavior?

06-09-2003, 05:04 PM	#319
dk Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,774	Re: Perhaps not... Originally posted by Bill Snedden I'm unable to determine the context of your statement: Autonomous from what? Capable of what? Stable as compared to...? Suitable for what? dk The US is a nation of people that immigrated as nuclear families from around the world, establishing the nuclear family as autonomous. Capable means able to overcome obstacles. Stable means in control. Suitable means suitable to human nature. Bill Snedden Sexual attraction doesn't determine moral status. Agreed. Please recognize this principle is neutral to both positions. Pedophilia/rape are irrelevant to this discussion. Please endeavor to stay on topic! dk I don't think we agree, its certainly not nuetral to anyone that's been raped or sexually molested. Women are rarely rapists or pedophiles, and that undermines the concept of homosexuality all together. I don't see how we can arrive at an ethical form if we must start with an irrational concept.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2003, 05:24 PM	#320
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	(Bill Snedden): Well, from the standpoint of normative ethics, I can't agree with this. While "Being albino" may be comparable to "being homosexual", "being albino" doesn't involve any actions or interactions with other human beings. As a result, it's normative ethical status is essentially moot. And while "being homosexual" may also not involve any necessary actions (and therefore also have a moot normative ethical status), there are actions that are generally associated with "homosexuality" (relationships, sexual contact, etc). It is these actions that are the province of normative ethics and the reason why it does make sense to ask about their ethical status. All of which is another reason why I think it makes sense to concentrate this thread on sexual contact rather than orientation... (Fr Andrew): I know doodly about normative ethics, but I agree with what you say...that if one considers homosexuality in terms of its physical manifestation, then it makes sense to discuss its ethical ramifications. But I think it serves a useful purpose to distinguish between homosexuality...and homosexual behavior--because by confusing the two we perpetuate a popular, and harmful, misconception--i.e., that sexual orientation is something we can control. Perhaps if meritocrat would say what he/she had in mind by "homosexuality" when he/she posed the question in the OP. Orientation...or behavior?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.