Dr Rick

...and if anyone else besides dk misses the obvious, I'll be happy to reply.

Bill Snedden

I have no idea what this means, and I suspect neither do you.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. The basis of your "ethical form" is indeed procreation. In other words, homosexual relationships are immoral because sex is only for procreation.

"Suspiciously like" is not analogy. I must ask, and I mean no offense, is English not your primary language? There have been several occasions when your responses are so garbled and confusing that I ask myself if it is possible that you simply lack a functional understanding of the English language.

Your last sentence simply begs the question. Promiscuous sex has absolutely nothing necessarily to do with homosexuality.

Of course it's a vital concern, but that certainly doesn't mean, and cannot mean, that an inability to procreate or the lack of a desire to procreate carries moral sanction.

To argue otherwise, as you apparently do, relegates sex to a mere biological function and denies utterly the complex psychological composition of human sexuality. In addition, it has the ludicrous consequence of turning married, childless couples into some sort of perverts. In addition, making biology the basis of morality also necessarily leads to the conclusion that human attempts to rectify biological inadequacies are de facto ethically comprised.

We weren't born with wings and therefore not meant to fly. Airplanes are immoral.

We weren't born with wheels and therefore weren't meant to move faster than we can run. Cars are immoral.

If your eyesight is failing due to a genetic defect, to bad. Eyeglasses are immoral.

Can you see that there is a reason why biological necessity makes a poor basis for moral judgements?

Perhaps you missed the actual question I asked: HOW are same-sex relationships inherently less stable than opposite-sex ones. Merely parroting your previous statement that they are is not an answer.

Yes, you've said that many times. It's clear what you think. It's not at all clear why you think it since you have consistently failed to provide one iota or shred of rationale behind it. You cite pages and pages of meaningless studies and data, and just never, ever get to the point!

Human sexuality and identity (assuming you mean sexual identity) are terms used to describe the complex of sexual relationships between human beings. As homosexual conduct is and has been a part of those sexual relationships for uncounted millenia, and individuals who identify as "homosexual" have been as well, they are both undeniably part of the natural human sexual patterns.

Happiness, is a completely subjective term, and unless you want to argue that homosexuals are inherently unhappy, and then provide evidence to back that up, this is yet another attempt to muddy the waters.

Your "ethical form" is woefully inadequate:

It's based solely on biological necessities: procreation is the only moral use of sexual contact.

It leads ineluctably to ridiculous and unsupportable conclusions: childless OSM are immoral, oral sex between consenting OS partners is immoral, in vitro fertilization is immoral, even airplanes and other human inventions that surmount biological obstacles are immoral.

It restricts human freedom without cause or reason: consenting adults should have the freedom to consort with each other as they please so long as they do not harm others.

As for "discussion", there never really was one anyway. Essentially you produced pages of paranoid and largely irrelevant posts filled with jargon and incomprehensible meanderings. Your opponents valiantly attempted to make heads or tails of it and many gave up what they soon realized was a futile effort. One or two have slogged through it to the point at which we find ourselves now: 8-9 pages later, we see that your entire argument rests on biology and is thus patently inadequate to the task at hand. Nothing more than a handful of ad-hoc rationalizations in an attempt to justify a baseless prejudice.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

dk: The autonomy the nuclear family allows diverse peoples a vehicle upon which to understand one another independent of higher more formal institutions.
Bill Snedden: I have no idea what this means, and I suspect neither do you.
dk: You don’t give yourself enough credit. I think most people instantly identify with the picture of a mother and/or father morning the death of a child. See if you can identify with this sequence… Father Son

dk: The autonomy of the nuclear family rest upon the human life cycle whereas civilization, nations, societies and cultures are contingencies.
Bill Snedden: Thank you for confirming my suspicions. The basis of your "ethical form" is indeed procreation. In other words, homosexual relationships are immoral because sex is only for procreation.
dk: I have no idea what you have against procreation. Do you think procreation ancillary to ethics?

dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t understand the analogy “suspiciously like…”. Human sexuality like human beings is very complex. Promiscuous sex puts any sense of a human family at odds with itself absent sound moral teachings.
Bill Snedden: "Suspiciously like" is not analogy. I must ask, and I mean no offense, is English not your primary language? There have been several occasions when your responses are so garbled and confusing that I ask myself if it is possible that you simply lack a functional understanding of the English language.
dk: Since “likeness” is a synonym for analogy (see Webster ) I’ll take this response as one of frustration. I don’t understand why you’ve suddenly started hiding behind worlds like “suspicious”, if you’re suspicious of something say it.

Bill Snedden: Your last sentence simply begs the question. Promiscuous sex has absolutely nothing necessarily to do with homosexuality.
dk: You must be talking to somebody else, did I say necessarily?

dk: Civilization, nations and all human institutions need the ability to raise healthy children, so it is obviously a vital concern.
Bill Snedden: Of course it's a vital concern, but that certainly doesn't mean, and cannot mean, that an inability to procreate or the lack of a desire to procreate carries moral sanction.
dk: What are you talking about?

Bill Snedden: To argue otherwise, as you apparently do, relegates sex to a mere biological function and denies utterly the complex psychological composition of human sexuality. In addition, it has the ludicrous consequence of turning married, childless couples into some sort of perverts. In addition, making biology the basis of morality also necessarily leads to the conclusion that human attempts to rectify biological inadequacies are de facto ethically comprised.
dk: 1) Sex is necessary for procreation, and 2) the nuclear family appears necessary to raise healthy morally sound children. I have no idea why!!!... you seem to think childless married couples are perverts, or why you appear to thing the nuclear family unformed/unethical. I think the concept of "homosexual" is perverted because it projects an egotistical perspective upon people that reduces them to herd animals. Do you think homosexuals are perverts?

Bill Snedden:

• We weren't born with wings and therefore not meant to fly. Airplanes are immoral.
• We weren't born with wheels and therefore weren't meant to move faster than we can run. Cars are immoral.
• If your eyesight is failing due to a genetic defect, to bad. Eyeglasses are immoral.
• Can you see that there is a reason why biological necessity makes a poor basis for moral judgements?

dk: Airplanes, cars, eyeglasses… are goods fashioned, produced and distributed by people to make a good life accessible to more people. Morality governs human life with reason to make a good life possible, with happiness in mind. I’m not sure why many people find this concept so difficult to grasp. Obviously morality, technology and material goods are insufficient to make people happy, so they are necessary but insufficient means that make happiness possible. Reason dictates people understand one another by the rules (moral principles) that govern them. As individuals people are in and of themselves flawed, needy and dependent. Where ethics confuses people with objects it makes a good life difficult and real intimacy impossible.

Bill Snedden: I'm glad to hear it, but what has that got to do with the question? How are same-sex relationships inherently less stable than opposite-sex ones?
dk: Yes gay communities and relationships are less stable. The instability generated by same sex relationships spills over into the greater society. For example gay communities have been decimated by risky behaviors that threaten the whole society.
Bill Snedden: Perhaps you missed the actual question I asked: HOW are same-sex relationships inherently less stable than opposite-sex ones. Merely parroting your previous statement that they are is not an answer.
dk: Gays, bi-sexuals and Lesbians (GBL) fundamentally mistakes consensual sex for an objective good necessary to happiness. Human sexuality like human beings is complex i.e. people are an “end unto themselves”. GBL views sex as a “means unto itself”. First the caricature fundamentally mistakes a complex “human being” for a simple object. Second the concept fits a person’s head with an egotistical straightjacket that subjugates, dehumanizes and denigrates love with a sex-zombie that substitutes immediate sexual-gratification and stimulation for human dignity, will and intimacy. The confusion generated can permeate every fiber and impulse of person’s being to make the pursuit of 1) happiness impossible, 2) pursuit of sexual gratification all consuming and 3) despair an intimate companion.

dk: Actually we’re discussing the ethics of homosexuality, not homosexuality per se. I’ve contented that homosexuality is an egotistical construct that fundamentally misstates human sexuality, identity and happiness.
Bill Snedden: Yes, you've said that many times. It's clear what you think. It's not at all clear why you think it since you have consistently failed to provide one iota or shred of rationale behind it. You cite pages and pages of meaningless studies and data, and just never, ever get to the point!
dk: The first post on the thread asks, “Is homosexuality ethical?”.

Bill Snedden: Human sexuality and identity (assuming you mean sexual identity) are terms used to describe the complex of sexual relationships between human beings. As homosexual conduct is and has been a part of those sexual relationships for uncounted millenia, and individuals who identify as "homosexual" have been as well, they are both undeniably part of the natural human sexual patterns.
dk: Lets examine your reasoning a little closer. Murder and rape (and worse) describe complex aspects of human sexuality, and have proceeded with man generation after generation from the dawn of history, and like GBL are undeniably flawed examples of human conduct.

Bill Snedden: Happiness, is a completely subjective term, and unless you want to argue that homosexuals are inherently unhappy, and then provide evidence to back that up, this is yet another attempt to muddy the waters.
dk: Happiness is no more subjective than any other human intangible, for example despair, abhorrence, apathy, beauty, love, hope and faith. This raises a number of questions which clarify “man does not live by bread alone”. GBLs as a group disproportionately display a wide array of unbalanced destructive behaviors that defy explanation or understanding. Sadly their egotistical narrow perspective leads them to irrationally blame others that intend them no harm. In a sense our material egotistical post modernists world rationalizes neurosis on a dialectic scale that attempts to balance 1) expression verses repression, 2) positive law verses morality law and tolerance verses judgment. While morality orders life with reason to make happiness possible, GBL stripped of any moral compass seek special dispensation to lead blameless lives that make happiness impossible. For example, in response to new HAART treatments in the 1990s the Gay community took off the gloves to celebrate bareback. They subsequently infected a whole new generation of gay protégés with hiv/aids. This was clearly a pathological response to hope, and subsequently supplanted hope with abject despair. Call it subjective if you like, but people stripped of morality can’t fathom the dignity to which they naturally aspire. Absent dignity any substantive response to adversity becomes impossible making discernment (active judgment) impossible, and without discernment people become a herd animal ruled by the mob.

dk: [I don’t know who you’re talking about, not me. I’ve simply stated homosexuality has no ethical form, whereas the nuclear family is an ethical form vital to human happiness and civilization. Please engage the debate and offer an ethical form for homosexuality, if you can, otherwise the discussion is over.
Bill Snedden: Your "ethical form" is woefully inadequate:
dk: The nuclear family is the unit that built and sustained modern civilization over the last 1,600 years, hence the form has certainly served adequately. I suspect what you mean to say is that you “personally” find the nuclear family inadequate. The question isn’t the nuclear family, but the adequacy of social engineers that scheme to supplant the nuclear family with some new amorphous x-family. The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate an ethical form suited to homosexuality, and so far you’ve provided nothing.

Bill Snedden: It's based solely on biological necessities: procreation is the only moral use of sexual contact.
dk: I didn’t say that, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Bill Snedden: It leads ineluctably to ridiculous and unsupportable conclusions: childless OSM are immoral, oral sex between consenting OS partners is immoral, in vitro fertilization is immoral, even airplanes and other human inventions that surmount biological obstacles are immoral.
dk: I didn’t say that, you must be confusing me with someone else.

Bill Snedden: It restricts human freedom without cause or reason: consenting adults should have the freedom to consort with each other as they please so long as they do not harm others.
dk: I didn’t say that, you must be confusing me with someone else, though people shouldn’t have the freedom to recruit and infect a whole new generation of gay protégés with hiv/aids to carry the gay torch.

Bill Snedden: As for "discussion", there never really was one anyway. Essentially you produced pages of paranoid and largely irrelevant posts filled with jargon and incomprehensible meanderings. Your opponents valiantly attempted to make heads or tails of it and many gave up what they soon realized was a futile effort. One or two have slogged through it to the point at which we find ourselves now: 8-9 pages later, we see that your entire argument rests on biology and is thus patently inadequate to the task at hand. Nothing more than a handful of ad-hoc rationalizations in an attempt to justify a baseless prejudice.
dk: You have yet to provide an ethical form of homosexuality. Instead you retreat into a mental straight jacket that can’t imagine any possible criticism of GBLs. Don’t blame me for the mental straight jacket you’ve crawled into, I didn’t manufacture it nor do I think its particularly healthy. .

Bill Snedden

I have nothing against procreation, but biological functions do not dictate morality. "Is" doesn't automatically guarantee "ought".

I'm not hiding behind anything. I thought my meaning was quite clear. I was suspicious that your argument was based in biology and as it happens, was correct.

You have posted reams of data, statistics, and ramblings about promiscuity, the homosexual lifestyle, ad nauseam. The only possible relevance such things could have to a discussion about the morality of homosexuality is if there was a necessary connection between the two. Your argument up to this point has implied that such a connection existed. Are you now admitting that those posts were in fact irrelevant?

No, I don't see any reason to label homosexuals as perverts.

I also don't think the "nuclear family" is unethical. Wherever did you get that idea?

"Childless married couples" become perverts under the ethical system you espouse, where procreation is the only viable usage of sexual contact. Or do you deny that this is your position?

I have no idea how ethics could possibly confuse people with objects as ethics is a set of guidelines on how people should live, not how people should relate to objects.

None of the rest of anything you posted even attempts to argue against the points I made. If you are founding an ethical system on biological function, it will necessarily militate against any attempts to step outside of biological functions.

To suggest that the only ethical or moral use of sex is for procreation is to suggest that biology dictates moral status. This standard militates against any and all attempts to supercede biological limitations. Surely you can see this.

Baseless and utterly risible rubbish.

Human freedom is an objective good necessary to happiness. Humans are means unto themselves with their happiness as their ultimate goal. Intimate contact, regardless of sexual orientation, is a means unto that end, not a "means unto itself."

The rest of your statement begs the question. Why does homosexual contact mistake a human being for a simple object and not heterosexual contact? What's the morally relevant difference?

How is homosexual contact necessarily any less infused with dignity, will, and intimacy?

I'm going to skip a substantive response to the rest of your post in favor of a different tactic.

You keep talking about an "ethical form", and part of the difficulty I've had (perhaps others as well) with this is that it's not part of the standard terminology of moral philosophy and figuring out exactly what you mean by it has wasted pages and pages.

Let's get down to basics. All moral and ethical systems have at their base some value or set of values that provide the foundation upon which they are built. As I've said, it would appear that your "ethical form" is based on biological function, which is clearly inadequate to support a moral theory.

But maybe the problem is that we've been dealing in generalities instead of specific cases. So, let me pose a couple of real-life cases and you can detail the exact elements that allow you to determine the moral status of the situations.

I have two friends, Mike and Rob (not their real names). They are gay and live together as partners. They are in a committed, monogamous relationship and have been for over 15 years. I have, on many occasions, witnessed their interactions and it is as clear to me as it could possibly be to a third party that they love each other. They don't go to bars, don't mess around, attend church regularly, contribute to charities and volunteer in the community. I have asked them about marriage, and they have both said that if it were legal, they would get married in a minute.

What elements of this relationship (if any) render it immoral or unethical? Upon what value or values does this judgement rest?

I have two other friends, Dave and Susan (again, not their real names). They are straight and live together as partners. They are in a committed monogamous relationship and have been married about 7 years. I have, on many occasions, witnessed their interactions and, as with Mike and Rob, it is clear to me that they love each other. They don't go to bars, don't mess around, attend church regularly, and contribute to charities (I don't know about any volunteer activities). However, they don't have any children. I've discussed this with them and they indicated that they have no interest in having children and got married simply because they loved each other and, in particular, because they are both "great sex."

What elements of this relationship (if any) render it immoral or unethical? Upon what value or values does this judgement rest?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

abe smith

In his(?) post of 13 june, 12: 05 am, dk has used the term
*discernment* in a way/context which says to me that he is a (probably) roman-catholic seminarian; (One of the Fathers here at EyeEye know this usage?) And I'd like to invite dk to come out of the seminary closet, so that we'll know what his/your alliances/allegiances are. Eh?

dk

dk: The autonomy of the nuclear family rest upon the human life cycle whereas civilization, nations, societies and cultures are contingencies.
Bill Snedden: Thank you for confirming my suspicions. The basis of your "ethical form" is indeed procreation. In other words, homosexual relationships are immoral because sex is only for procreation.
dk: I have no idea what you have against procreation. Do you think procreation ancillary to ethics?
Bill Snedden: I have nothing against procreation, but biological functions do not dictate morality. "Is" doesn't automatically guarantee "ought".
dk: I’ll take that as a dogmatic statement.

dk: Since “likeness” is a synonym for analogy (see Webster ) I’ll take this response as one of frustration. I don’t understand why you’ve suddenly started hiding behind worlds like “suspicious”, if you’re suspicious of something say it.
Bill Snedden: I'm not hiding behind anything. I thought my meaning was quite clear. I was suspicious that your argument was based in biology and as it happens, was correct.
dk: To my knowledge biology and environment form a dynamic that begins the nature verses nurture argument. In my opinion science has offered little empirical evidence on the argument while ideologues make pet dogmas out of scientific pretext.

Bill Snedden: Your last sentence simply begs the question. Promiscuous sex has absolutely nothing necessarily to do with homosexuality.
dk: You must be talking to somebody else, did I say necessarily?
Bill Snedden: You have posted reams of data, statistics, and ramblings about promiscuity, the homosexual lifestyle, ad nauseam. The only possible relevance such things could have to a discussion about the morality of homosexuality is if there was a necessary connection between the two. Your argument up to this point has implied that such a connection existed. Are you now admitting that those posts were in fact irrelevant?
dk: I have no idea what constitutes a “homosexual lifestyle” so can’t comment. Promiscuous sex spreads a host of deadly, incurable and life altering contagious stds that threatens civilization. From a pedagogical perspective it is unethical for a community to promulgate promiscuous sex to youth.

dk: 1) Sex is necessary for procreation, and 2) the nuclear family appears necessary to raise healthy morally sound children. I have no idea why!!!... you seem to think childless married couples are perverts, or why you appear to thing the nuclear family unformed/unethical. I think the concept of "homosexual" is perverted because it projects an egotistical perspective upon people that reduces them to herd animals. Do you think homosexuals are perverts?
Bill Snedden: No, I don't see any reason to label homosexuals as perverts.
dk: So do you think its ethical for Gay men to promulgate promiscuous sex in High Schools?

Bill Snedden: I also don't think the "nuclear family" is unethical. Wherever did you get that idea?
"Childless married couples" become perverts under the ethical system you espouse, where procreation is the only viable usage of sexual contact. Or do you deny that this is your position?
dk: You’re the only one that claims “childless married couples” to be unethical. I suspect you’re trying to say… if childless married couples are ethical, then same sex married couples are ethical. This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. The essence of my criticism takes issue with Freudian egotism as the source of homosexuality. Egotism purports to be a material cause (of behavior) that lacks a material base, therefore hobbles along in a dialect between teleological certitude verses metaphysical certainty. Most people like to think homosexuals are born because they can’t imagine anyone would become homosexual of their own volition. From an ethical perspective whether the cause of homosexuality is nature or nurture is irrelevant, because the premises lack testability. I simply note homosexuality is a concept rooted in egotism that lacks an ethical form. Absent a rational basis its impossible to say whether 2, 3,,,n homosexuals bonded together by marriage forms anything more/less suitable. I claim the deterioration of the nuclear family in the post modern world has produced a culture so toxic to the nuclear family that homosexuality appears justifiable and viable. Homosexuality is the poster child for Freudian Egotism.

dk: Airplanes, cars, eyeglasses… are goods fashioned, produced and distributed by people to make a good life accessible to more people. Morality governs human life with reason to make a good life possible, with happiness in mind. I’m not sure why many people find this concept so difficult to grasp. Obviously morality, technology and material goods are insufficient to make people happy, so they are necessary but insufficient means that make happiness possible. Reason dictates people understand one another by the rules (moral principles) that govern them. As individuals people are in and of themselves flawed, needy and dependent. Where ethics confuses people with objects it makes a good life difficult and real intimacy impossible.
Bill Snedden: I have no idea how ethics could possibly confuse people with objects as ethics is a set of guidelines on how people should live, not how people should relate to objects.
dk: I can’t parse the sentence, perhaps Bill means, “I have no idea how ethics could possibly confuse people with objects. Ethics is a set of guidelines on how people should live, not how people should relate to objects”. In Third Reich Dr. Josef Mengela ran scientific experiments on twins that routinely culminated in with mutilation and dissection, the twins were object of a scientific experiment. In the US the Supreme Court affirmed slavery as ethical in the Dred Scott Decision, and in doing so determined Africans slaves suitable objects necessary for production. More recently and perhaps most shocking, “For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.” - The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment I could go on indefinitely but essentially science introduces variables that confuse all kinds of people, especially scientists that rank science the highest ethical pursuit.

Bill Snedden: None of the rest of anything you posted even attempts to argue against the points I made. If you are founding an ethical system on biological function, it will necessarily militate against any attempts to step outside of biological functions.
dk: You haven’t made any points apart from regurgitating scripted dogma.

Bill Snedden: To suggest that the only ethical or moral use of sex is for procreation is to suggest that biology dictates moral status. This standard militates against any and all attempts to supercede biological limitations. Surely you can see this.
dk: Again, you’re the only one that defines morality and ethics in terms of a sex act, but whatever floats your boat.

dk: Gays, bi-sexuals and Lesbians (GBL) fundamentally mistakes consensual sex for an objective good necessary to happiness. Human sexuality like human beings is complex i.e. people are an “end unto themselves”. GBL views sex as a “means unto itself”. First the caricature fundamentally mistakes a complex “human being” for a simple object. Second the concept fits a person’s head with an egotistical straightjacket that subjugates, dehumanizes and denigrates love with a sex-zombie that substitutes immediate sexual-gratification and stimulation for human dignity, will and intimacy. The confusion generated can permeate every fiber and impulse of person’s being to make the pursuit of 1) happiness impossible, 2) pursuit of sexual gratification all consuming and 3) despair an intimate companion.
Bill Snedden: Baseless and utterly risible rubbish.
dk: Denial suits a mind fitted to a straightjacket.

Bill Snedden: Human freedom is an objective good necessary to happiness. Humans are means unto themselves with their happiness as their ultimate goal. Intimate contact, regardless of sexual orientation, is a means unto that end, not a "means unto itself."
dk: STDs, MTCT of STDs, teenage pregnancy, infertility, unmarried mothers, abandoned children, divorce, domestic violence, PID and cancer are a few of the droppings left in the wake of the sexual revolution. The fiscal costs of stds alone dwarfs any possible material benefit, and human carnage incalculable. Its simply impossible for ethics to disregard the carnage and remain credible.

dk: The rest of your statement begs the question. Why does homosexual contact mistake a human being for a simple object and not heterosexual contact? What's the morally relevant difference?
Bill Snedden: How is homosexual contact necessarily any less infused with dignity, will, and intimacy?
dk: I have no idea what “homosexual contact” means. Homosexuality is mental straight jacket constructed from an egotistical core that isolates people no matter whom they contact.

Bill Snedden: I'm going to skip a substantive response to the rest of your post in favor of a different tactic.
You keep talking about an "ethical form", and part of the difficulty I've had (perhaps others as well) with this is that it's not part of the standard terminology of moral philosophy and figuring out exactly what you mean by it has wasted pages and pages.
Let's get down to basics. All moral and ethical systems have at their base some value or set of values that provide the foundation upon which they are built. As I've said, it would appear that your "ethical form" is based on biological function, which is clearly inadequate to support a moral theory.
dk: No. I begin by stating a principle… Nations and civilizations grow and prosper by solving problems that arise in time, otherwise they atrophy, degenerate and die. Each successive generation faces new problems unimagined by their predicessors. Morality constructs principles that order a life with the four causal senses stated by Aristotle. For example, suppose a marble statue is commissioned, then …

1. material cause is the marble block
2. essential cause a chisel & hammer (tools)
3. formal cause the sculptor
4. final cause the patron that commissioned the art work

Egotism only considers level 1 and 2 i.e. material and essential causes, so lacks the greater depth, mystery, meaning and purpose inherent in level 3 and 4 i.e. formal and final causes. At level 1 & 2 people are either objects or instruments valued as utilitarian units. Sex like hunger becomes an end unto itself. Sexual intercourse serves no greater purpose and means than social, political, industrial or economic intercourse. Pregnancy turns women into slaves chained to biological rhythms, and men understand women as sexual objects that deliver children to deprive them of sexual gratification. In an egotistical world homosexuality makes perfect sense, which should be of no surprise because Freud discovered both epiphanies. Whatever mental irregularities (neurosis, schizophrenia) might occur are written off to moral repression, social oppression, personal detachment and/or material (mental) flaws.

dk: All Mike and Rob can possibly do is mock sex and marriage. Rob and Mike, each, has become an end unto themselves. They are egotistical bubble boys that use one another (as objects) absent any greater possibility, goal or purpose (level 2 & 3). I have no idea why Mike and/or Rob want to chain themselves to one another in bondage.

Bill Snedden: I have two other friends, Dave and Susan (again, not their real names). They are straight and live together as partners. They are in a committed monogamous relationship and have been married about 7 years. I have, on many occasions, witnessed their interactions and, as with Mike and Rob, it is clear to me that they love each other. They don't go to bars, don't mess around, attend church regularly, and contribute to charities (I don't know about any volunteer activities). However, they don't have any children. I've discussed this with them and they indicated that they have no interest in having children and got married simply because they loved each other and, in particular, because they are both "great sex."
dk: In an egotistical world I'd say Dave and Susan have been coerced into marital bondage by social and economic pressures. Mike and Rob appear to be getting along fine, so I’m not sure why they’d want to marry, apart from the social and economic pressures. I personally don’t see how marriage bonds in and of themselves produce any benefit for either couple.

Bill Snedden: What elements of this relationship (if any) render it immoral or unethical? Upon what value or values does this judgement rest?
dk: There’re probably two principles we can agree upon…

1. Love does no harm..
2. Man doesn’t live by bread alone.

From what you’ve described Dave, Susan, Mike and Rob have found safe harbor in committed relationships, and by your account find their coupling comfortable and sustainable. In an egotistical world the acquisition of gratification, creature comforts, security, power and status become the substance of happiness pursued by individuals with good manners. Sadly all committed relationships are fraught with problems that follow from human frailties. In an egotistical world commitments serve personal, institutional or national interests that taken together serve self-interest, or personal attainment. When a commitment or duty becomes an obstacle to personal attainment then the commitment ceases to be functional and serves no purpose at all. I don’t see how traditional marriage vows, “in sickness and health until death do we part” serves any purpose in these relationships. Absent access to level 3 or 4 (formal and final cause) people sacrifice broken meaningless commitments for attainment. In effect egotism supplants the idea of a selfless commitment of love for a personal commitment to attainment. Formal and final causes apart from personal attainment therefore have no meaning. All external commitments therefore become personal, private and temporary in an events matrix wired for personal attainment, the ultimate treadmill.

Herbert Marcuse(1909-1989) a philosopher of the New Left in the 1950-70s morphed elements of Hegel, Freud with Marx into a counter-culture thesis “Critical Theory”. The thesis understands sexual repression as a reservoir of counter-culture energy available for political and social reconstruction. The anti-climax culminates in a new world order of androgynous people tailored (engineered) for maxim gratification and pain avoidance within a society that runs smoothly on kinetics mutual self interest. The sexual revolution, radical feminist and gay rights movements of the 1960-70s have over the last 40 years fermented into commercialized institutions of Marcusian counter-culture. Predictably when radical feminist’s biological clock runs down they find a sperm donor or surrogate to gratify their reproductive instincts without any thought to the child’s need for a father. Mothers and Fathers of the counter-culture readily abandon their children and spouses for the sake of personal attainment. When HAART treatments came online hard core gays activists took the gloves off to celebrate a new lease on life by infecting a new generation. Depression, suicide, gluttony, infidelity, compulsion, violence, addiction and happy pills have become a medicinal necessity in a material egotistical world absent a formal and final cause. All in all not a very pleasing portrait of hedonistic in Eden.

The strength a society, nation and civilization reaps from morality based on causation is the analytical skills of the children they raise. Such people have a natural sense of belonging forged in the familiar commitment that extents to the greater society. Such people find Level 3 and 4 attributes of faith, hope, and charity the means of attainment (happiness), as opposed to caricatures of moral zombies in pursuit of mutual self interest.

Nowhere357

You might have seen this, since it is from aol news.

Now, if Bush would just go away, I'd start to think that there is hope for our country and our world.

------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.

The men ''are entitled to respect for their private lives,'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

''The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,'' he said.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The court ''has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,'' Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

''The court has taken sides in the culture war,'' Scalia said, adding that he has ''nothing against homosexuals.''

Although the majority opinion said the case did not ''involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter,'' Scalia said the ruling invites laws allowing gay marriage.

''This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,'' Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considers the Texas law at issue ''uncommonly silly,'' he cannot agree to strike it down because he finds no general right to privacy in the Constitution.

Thomas calls himself a strict adherent to the actual words of the Constitution as opposed to modern-day interpretations. If he were a Texas legislator and not a judge, Thomas said, he would vote to repeal the law.

''Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources,'' Thomas wrote.

The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.

The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was ''going crazy'' in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men having anal sex.

''This ruling lets us get on with our lives and it opens the door for gay people all over the country,'' Lawrence said Thursday.

Ruth Harlow, one of Lawrence's lawyers, called the ruling historic.

''The court had the courage to reverse one of its gravest mistakes and to replace that with a resounding statement,'' of gay civil rights, Harlow said.

''This is a giant leap forward to a day where we are no longer branded as criminals.''

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts.

Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four - Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri - prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone:
Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws as well.

The Supreme Court was widely criticized 17 years ago when it upheld an antisodomy law similar to Texas'. The ruling became a rallying point for gay activists.

Of the nine justices who ruled on the 1986 case, only three remain on the court. Rehnquist was in the majority in that case - Bowers v. Hardwick - as was O'Connor. Stevens dissented.

''Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today,'' Kennedy wrote for the majority Thursday.

Kennedy noted that the current case does not involve minors or anyone who might be unable or reluctant to refuse a homosexual advance.

''The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.''

A long list of legal and medical groups joined gay rights and human rights supporters in backing the Texas men. Many friend-of-the-court briefs argued that times have changed since 1986, and that the court should catch up.

At the time of the court's earlier ruling, 24 states criminalized such behavior. States that have since repealed the laws include Georgia, where the 1986 case arose.

Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing. Homosexual sodomy, the state argued in legal papers, ''has nothing to do with marriage or conception or parenthood and it is not on a par with these sacred choices.''

The state had urged the court to draw a constitutional line ''at the threshold of the marital bedroom.''

Although Texas itself did not make the argument, some of the state's supporters told the justices in friend-of-the-court filings that invalidating sodomy laws could take the court down the path of allowing same-sex marriage.

The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.

Diadectes

And here I was thinking the reason I woke up feeling pissed off this morning was because I've reached my overdraft limit and the cat needs to go to the vet. But thanks, dk, my oh-so-unhappy partner and I (fourteen years and doing good, thanks for asking)were cheered up considerably by this. Unmitigated nonsense is always good for a laugh.

Vylo

In my opinion, no, it does not harm anyone.

Do I agree with homosexuality? not at all, I am physically repulsed by it. But I am sure I do many things others find physically revolting. The fact that homosexuals perform acts that repulse me does not mean they themselves repulse me. I have a cousin who is gay, and I think he is a very decent, kind human being.

Many people will constantly grow angered at the fact that many people make fun of homosexuality and use political correctness to control the speech of others. Unfortunately this can cause mere disagreement to fester into hatred. Do I make fun of homosexuality? yes. Do I have any actual malise toward the homosexualy community? na, I really dont care how you get you're jollies. But please don't lack so much self esteem that you must lash out at anyone making light fun of your lifestyle. People make fun of aspects of my lifestyle, and I don't really care, they are entitled to their opinion, and a little humor doesn't hurt (besides I tend to zing em right back ). As long as the people involved to intend any real harm towards each other, it is just an expression of the persons confusion towards aspects of that person, which is reasonable, as it is hard to tell how people are thinking.

Nowhere357

Sounds reasonable, it really does.

But then it's all right to call black people "niggers", if hey, we mean no harm. Right?

Peoples entire lives are being made miserable by current state of affairs.

It sounds like you are part way to understanding.