phil

Man! You guys are great! Dr Rick, I have to commend you on your "quote" of my argument. Sci girl, you presented your case with much organization.

You guys have posted so many questions there's no way I could answer them all! However, I will try to answer some of them. Give me a few minutes though, I really want to take notes on what you wrote (I hate scrolling back and forth too).

Kudos to you again! Many of your responses were quite reasonable (though lacking in the finer art of tactfullness j/k)

-phil

scigirl

That's nothing, you should see my room right now. Oh wait, no you shouldn't - it's a complete disaster!

Take as long as you need.

Ha ha! Well, you do have to give us somecredit. Unlike places like I love Jesus and the Baptist board, we won't pretend to be all "christian-like and loving" to your face but stab you in the back - we pretty much just stab you out front. But don't worry, we have lots of medical professionals to help nurse your wounds!

Plus we have been going around in circles lately with two members called 'yguy' and 'dk' who keep spouting the same arguments over and over, with no evidence, and it's been a bit frustrating. Therefore, our jumping all over you is more of a matter of timing than personal hostility at you!

Enjoy the forums, oh and you might want to check out some of the things I said here in my formal debate with a christian over whether christianity promotes gay and lesbian bigotry (the net result - we both agreed that it did, at least on some level). The formatting is leftover from the old bulletin code, but hopefully you get a general idea of what was said.

scigirl

phil

First, I will reply to sci girl's objections.

1. So we don't base morality on principles? Does murder become right if everyone decides it is?

2. It is also a biological fact that a certain # of our population has cancer. This statistic, until we know exactly what causes cancer and make some endeavor to change it- is unchangable. Therefore your argument is irrelevent since the statistic is currently unchangable (unless you are one of those silly humans that thinks cancer can actually be cured [imagine that!])

3. Artificial insemination is a heterosexual act (only there is a 'middle man' so to speak)

Finally, to wrap up my first response, I will explain what I mean by "unnatural." I view homosexuality as unnatural because it cannot further the procreation of mankind.

I also realize there are infertile couples (that is not there fault), and couples that just don't want to have babies. I have no objections to either case. However, I would be concerned if couples that didn't want babies for themselves went out on the streets and started protesting against procreation, and suddenly started wanting special recognization only because of their "underprivaleged" point of view.

-phil

brighid

It's called equal rights not special rights that gays/lesbians/bi/transgendered individuals are seeking. Nor do I see those people protesting against heterosexuals because they are heterosexual, attempting to enact legistlature that makes sexual activity between consenting adults of opposite genders illegal, prohibiting them from adopting, parenting, working, etc. etc. but I do so ALOT of that from heterosexuals.

So if you would have a problem with those couples protesting against procreation you should remain morally consistent and have a problem with people protesting against other human beings from being allowed to legally designate another human being to inherit their money, make medical decisions for their partner (and all the other legal things marriage confers), or what consenting adults can or cannot do in their bedroom, whom another person can or cannot love, etc.


Brighid

phil

Dr. Rick,
Very good job in "quoting" my argument. However, the last time I checked homosexuality wasn't an occupation. People can be homosexual and have the capability to do many types of professions. Your argument works in that your statement that everyone would die if they all became doctors, however, homosexuality is a philosophical stance, not an occupation.

Is there something else you could put in there (namely a philosophical stance towards a behavior) that would prove my argument is flawed?

[for rick and everyone else out there]
Also, I thought I'd state that I do know that there are some creatures that are sometimes homosexual (they are a certain type of insect I believe and actually become homosexual on and off! weird huh?) However, though it may be natural for some species, it does not make it natural for humans or any other species.

Is it natural for humans to jump 100 times their height? Yet that is what fleas can do. How do you define natural? Since there are statistics for suicide, cancer, schizophrenia etc. does that make them natural?

Also, even if something is natural, does that mean it is good? (i'm treading on thin ice 'cause I don't want to get into what makes a thing right or wrong, that should be saved for another thread)

Consider the influenza. It is a natural occuring thing. Yet we consider it bad. Why? Because it harms people. Before we had vaccines for the 'flu' it was considered quite dangerous and had much potential of being deadly. We basically squashed the flu's freedom to hurt people with the vaccine. I do know that some people still come down with the flu and some even die, but what I am talking about is fighting against something that is natural.

There are many more examples of natural things that we consider bad because they harm us, I'm sure you could probably come up with dozens yourself.

Don't try to defend homosexuality because it's 'natural' and I won't try to argue against homosexuality because it's 'unnatural'. I don't think we'll get anywhere.

Now, I have a question. If the principle of homosexuality is harming to society as a whole, why should we not try to cure it?

[by 'principle' I mean that sexual relations are to only be with the same sex. This means artificial insemination must be considered heterosexual (as I explained before that the only difference is that there is a 'middle man') If all of society accepted the principle of homosexuality we wouldn't survive. I know this won't happen, but 'what if' statements are used to prove the truth of a principle, nothing more.]

-phil

scigirl

You aren't reading my posts (or your own) very carefully.

You were trying to make the argument that homosexuality is immoral because if everyone became a homosexual, then society would stop breeding. You did not produce an argument that related to the relevant society - a society in which enough people are not gay, and are breeding. Furthermore, you did not make a case why specifically, homosexuality is wrong, even if only one homosexual existed.

Murder is prima facia wrong whether we kill one, or kill many.

Yes and we already think that having cancer is a bad thing, irrespective of how many people get it.

Let me politely and tactfully remind you of your argument. You are arguing that homosexuality is wrong because if it were applied to everyone, it would decrease the amount of offspring.

I was merely pointing out that this situation is unlikely to occur, so we can philosophize about it I suppose. But as you'll see, I'm not a big fan of evaluating the morality of impossible and highly unlikely situations. This is why I"m a scientist and not a philosopher!

Yes it is, and homosexuals are capable of engaging in heterosexual sex. And as a side note, heterosexuals are capable of "homosexual sex" or "non child producing" sex. I don't care what Clinton said, oral sex is sex, and anal sex is sex!

It seems to me that you are defining a homosexual as a person who never ever has, and never ever will have, either hetero intercourse or artificial insemination. If that is the case, then perhaps we can have a discussion about your theory. However, once again, this population does not exist.

So let me see if I have your argument correct. The kind of sex that could produce offspring, even when it doesn't, is more moral than the kind of sex that could never produce offspring? Why?

Furthermore, are you saying that if I go get laid tonight and happen to get pregnant, even though I didn't intend to get pregnant, I am more moral than a homosexual who chooses to engage in an action that furthers his or her own genetic material?

If you are saying that the capacity for breeding makes us more moral, than you have to prove that A) this is even valid to do, and B) homosexuals as we know them today, with today's technology are less capable of breeding than heterosexuals. I think you will fail on both counts.

Why do you allow for this exception but not a homosexual one? You did not explain yourself at all. My aunt chose to get her tubes tied because she never wants kids. How is she more moral than a gay person?

Me too. Please tell me who is doing that. The homosexuals that I personally know, do want to procreate and have children, or at the very least, adopt an unwanted child from a heterosexual union. However, unfortunately for them, there are people protesting out in the streets, and preventing them for doing just that. Tell me phil, are you ok with homosexuals adopting children? If not, than you can add one more inconsistency to your theory.

Since when did allowing a consenting adult to get married to another consenting adult as a special privelege?

scigirl

scigirl

OHHH I didn't realize you were a researcher! I'm assuming by this statement that you did check to see just what homosexuality was. Did you get the same heritance coefficient as these studies?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I would love to see your data.

You still did not get it. Please remind yourself about what your original argument was - that an action is immoral if, when it is applied to the entire population, the entire population goes extinct.

No, of course not. We were simply refuting the tired and old religious right argument that homosexuality is not natural. That's all. So don't use it again!
Do you really want to get into an epidemiological argument with a current (rick) and future (me) physician? I didn't think so!

Surely more than that!

YAY! We refuted an argument of yours, and you agree not to use it anymore! Please stick around - this is so refreshing!

Sure. But I don't agree that it is harming.

And you have absolutely no basis for doing so.

Surely, intent to want to have offspring must play into your paradigm. If a heterosexual couple doesn't want kids, and gets an operation, how are they more moral than a homosexual couple that wants kids, and undergoes a procedure or adopts to get them?

BUT... you excluded all the homosexuals who use a "middleman" to have offspring in your own pet definition of the principle of homosexuality. The actual homosexual community does in no way fit your definition, so your def'n, thus your premise, is irrelevant.

scigirl

Dr Rick

"Many parents consider something to be ethically wrong if it harms someone or society as a whole, right? So consider if everyone on earth became nuns...The human race would be wiped out in a matter of decades."

scigirl

One more thing, than I am going to dinner.

Phil seems to be struggling defending two different ideas:

1) Sex by itself is only moral if it has the potential to produce offspring.

Yet he arbitrarily applies this to homosexuals, since he has no problem with infertile heterosexual couples having sex.

2) A marriage is only moral if kids can be involved. He has no problem with a heterosexual couple that chooses not to have children. Yet again, he arbitrarily excludes gays from this analysis even if they do want children.

scigirl

phil

sci girl,

"You were trying to make the argument that homosexuality is immoral because if everyone became a homosexual, then society would stop breeding. You did not produce an argument that related to the relevant society - a society in which enough people are not gay, and are breeding. Furthermore, you did not make a case why specifically, homosexuality is wrong, even if only one homosexual existed. (ephasis added)

What you're asking me to do is prove that homosexuality is absolutely wrong morally. You're asking me to prove a moral absolute! THAT changes everything! Before I can do that though, I must know if you believe moral absolutes exist. It would be useless to prove a moral absolute if you didn't believe they existed.

If you don't believe in moral absolutes I think we might have to start another thread and get that sorted out before we finish stuff here.

I too am heading off to dinner. I think I will call it a night too. Thanks for all the great feedback. I may check in tomorrow.

-phil