FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-13-2003, 02:40 PM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast?
Posts: 10,762
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by phil
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
I do not agree that that is the principle of homosexuality. I don't think homosexuality is a principle or a philosophy. It's a feeling. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex in the same way heterosexuals like myself are attracted to the opposite sex. By "attracted to" I mean both sexual attraction and romantic love attraction, which I see as two related but not identical emotions. It is not a belief that everyone should feel the way they do. I've never met or heard of a homosexual who thinks heterosexuality is weird. And I have never heard of any homosexual trying to convince other people to be homosexual.
Godless Dave is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 03:24 PM   #42
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 220
Default

quote from phil:

Many atheists consider something to be ethically wrong if it harms someone or society as a whole, right?

You know what? What harms society is not someone's gender preference. It is other people's ignorant, and in my opinion, bigoted perceptions about someone else's lifestyle; especially since it is noone's business but the people involvled!!!!
catmar is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 03:25 PM   #43
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by MzNeko
Er, phil...

That was HUMOR, h-u-m-o-r. Don't they have sarcasm on your home planet?

As far as it goes, it would be a bad thing if nobody reproduced.

However� I'm pretty sure that even if being gay didn't have a stigma, the straight people would still be attracted to and marry people of the opposite sex.

If a law allowing gay marriage passed in this country tomorrow, I rather doubt that droves of straight people would run out and marry folks of the same sex just because they can. I can't help wondering about people that seem to think so�

:notworthy
catmar is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 04:17 PM   #44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham, UK / Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 345
Default

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

I belive it has already been pointed out that homosexuality is not a philosophical stance, but let me try something nonetheless:

Many people consider something to be ethically wrong if it harms someone or society as a whole, right? So consider if everyone on earth became infertile. The human race would be wiped out in a matter of decades. Is the extinction of the human race harmful to someone or society as a whole?...

So consider if everyone on earth became female. The human race would be wiped out in a matter of decades. Is the extinction of the human race harmful to someone or society as a whole?...

Also, there are many animals that engage in homosexual/bisexual/self-sexual etc. behavior apart from the insects you mentioned, such as bonobos, dolphins, flamingoes etc.

Just some things I wanted to point out. You can now go back to arguing about whether it is immoral for two people to marry despite having incompatible genitalia.
RRoman is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 04:38 PM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scigirl
...or whatever it is that we throw at weddings now!
Hummus.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 04:45 PM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by phil
So consider if everyone on earth became homosexual.
Is there any reason at all to even speculate whether this circumstance could possibly have the slightest chance of actualization to any significant or insignifcant extent that could even remotely pose the merest hint of a whisper of a threat, implied or explicit, to the survival of homo sapiens?



How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I am always totally boggled whenever I encounter someone that harbors this fear of gays, and that we are taking over. I see it again and again, yet it absolutely throws me for a loop every time.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 04:55 PM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default Re: Speaking of inconsistencey...

Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Rick
So, assuming for the moment that homosexuality is both a disorder and immoral, is it also immoral to have the disorder of schizophrenia?
Eh, you miss the point. The disorder is wanting to be immoral, see? If you're gay and don't want to be that's one thing, there's probably hope for you and even if there isn't, misery is a virtue. But these **derogatory language removed by moderator* who are proud of it got another thing coming.

Don't ask me about people who want to be schizophrenic. Stay on topic.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 04:59 PM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by phil
(as I explained before that the only difference is that there is a 'middle man')
Threesome!
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 05:12 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scigirl
Do you really want to get into an epidemiological argument with a current (rick) and future (me) physician? I didn't think so!
Now, now - that's Appeal to Authority.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 06-13-2003, 06:40 PM   #50
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 188
Default

Consider this-

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
combined with this-

Quote:
3. Artificial insemination is a heterosexual act (only there is a 'middle man' so to speak)
You are claiming that to be homosexual, one cannot perform any acts you consider to be heterosexual. However, you'll also have to apply this principle to doctors, won't you? A doctor can't do anything that a doctor doesn't do, so Dr. Rick's analogy works.

Quote:
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!
This doesn't change anything, since it's what you've been arguing. You were claiming homosexuality is always bad because of a hypothetical situation.
PandaJoe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.