Bill Snedden

This is a step in the right direction. Thank you, dk.

Now, while it's a step, it's not exactly what I was looking for. So I'm afraid I need some further clarification.

It would seem from what you've posted that you consider procreation to be the value that yields ethical status for the male-female union. Would this be correct?

Irrelevant and immaterial. I thought we were leaving the distractions behind?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

A looser is somebody that can't help themselves, they fail, but never learn from their mistakes because they blame other people.

everlastingtongue

dk,

So after 13 pages of contrived, convoluted, twisted argumentation, that is all you can come up with: that “all gays are loosers.” And then misspell it? I’m disappointed.

dk

dk: Homosexuality defines a person as an object, an object of sexual atraction, whereas family defines men and women in terms of an ethical form, women and men being wed by a blood oath (till death do us part) consummated by an act of procreation. The form is ethical because it suits all parties it covers, and is necessary to procreation. This really has nothing to do with homosexuality which has no ethical form. The ethics of homosexuality follow egotistically from concept alone i.e. the concept being that sexual attraction is self evident, therefore moral.
Bill Snedden: This is a step in the right direction. Thank you, dk.
Now, while it's a step, it's not exactly what I was looking for. So I'm afraid I need some further clarification.
It would seem from what you've posted that you consider procreation to be the value that yields ethical status for the male-female union. Would this be correct?
dk: Not just procreation, but autonomy, capability, stability and suitability.

dk: The problem is that women are rarely pedophiles or rapists. Thus a sexual attraction towards prepubescent children must also be moral, and the use of women as sexual objects must also be moral. This undermines all ethical norms that communicate happiness as the proper object of human struggle, and substitutes a completely egotistical system.
Bill Snedden: Irrelevant and immaterial. I thought we were leaving the distractions behind?
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.

Bill Snedden

True. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I've necessarily limited the target I wish to pursue.

It's pretty difficult to talk about the morality of a desire or thought that's never acted upon. The discussion will necessarily get into metaethics and given the difficulty involved in getting our opponents to lay out their argument at all, I thought it best to start simpler.

Agreed.

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...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

No, I could care less if someone's gay, lesbian or bisexual. Everybody fails, loosers can't help themselves because they are incapable of a mistake, and blame others. Planned Parenthood and SIECUS blame others for 30 years of failures and wasting $billions on a failed agenda to make "sex safe". Simple.

hiv/aids in the US has been an epedemic for over 20 years, and many gays still blame others for their own failure, and in doing so make themselves loosers. Not everybody in the Gay, Lesbian, Bi, and Transexual Rights Movement blame others, some have stopped to reflect upon the mistakes, to learn from their mistakes and move on to become better people. Nobodies immune. The hard fact never changes. To irraticate a deadly contagous incurable disease like hiv/aids we(all of us) must stop it from spreading to the next generations. We've all failed. There's no shame except to blame others. I know gays that blame society for the spread of aids to the next generation are loosers. simple.

HelenM

I thought gays were men who are sexually attracted to men. I've never seen that definition before!

Helen

brighid

Now the question would be are they losers because they are gay, or gay because they are losers? :banghead:

Brighid

dk

Gays aren't loosers because of sexual attraction, they are only loosers if they blame others for the mistakes they make. Anybody that blames others for their own mistakes can't help themselves. Its a looser's mentality.

brighid

What mistakes would they have made? Balancing their check book incorrectly? Matching the wrong colored pants and tie? Voting Republican? ...

I would say that any person who fails to take personal responsibility for the aspects of life that he/she can control has lost out. I don't know if I would define that person as a loser, but to blame to moral decline of a predominantly heterosexual, Christian nation on the minority, fringe groups seems a little bit like blaming others for the mistakes they have made ... don't ya think?

Brighid