Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 06-12-2003, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
If a child isn't a person, then why so squimish? If a child is a person then why the pedophobia.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

A child is a person, but pedophilia is attraction to the BODY, not to the PERSON.

winstonjen · 06-12-2003, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk

dk: Children raised in single parent homes and foster homes are tagged AT RISK. Do you know of any human institution free from abuse. The nuclear family is important because its the basic unit of civilization, well not every civilization, but all the living civilizations.

Well then, nuclear families can also be tagged AT RISK because there are TWO parents who could abuse the children. And if foster homes are so bad, do you think it's better for them to have been aborted?

Quote:

dk: child sex, same sex, any sex and opposite sex attractions exist, so what distinguishes them apart, ethically speaking.

Informed consent.

seebs · 06-12-2003, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
If a child isn't a person, then why so squimish? If a child is a person then why the pedophobia.

A child is a person, but not a person *capable of consent* in this context; that makes it rape.

Fr.Andrew · 06-12-2003, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
This strikes me as wrong.

You seem to say that a fondness for eating meat is just that without any distinction if such meat is human or animal. Your emphasis is on "fondness' instead of realizing what the object of this fondness actually is....

(Fr Andrew): No, my emphasis is on the gender of the object of desire.
Whether or not one has a fondness for the meat of humans or (other) animals is irrelevant to whether or not one is a carnivore.
Whether or not one has a fondness for redheads or brunettes (or children) is irrelevant to whether or not one is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

Fr.Andrew · 06-12-2003, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
That being the case then please distinguish between a same sex attraction and sexual attraction for a child. I quit frankly don't see any.

(Fr Andrew): Are you able to distinguish between opposite sex attraction...and sexual attraction for a child?
I really don't see how I can be any more clear, dk. Sexual orientation has specifically to do with the gender of the object of your attraction, nothing else.
Not their age or the color of their hair.

HelenM · 06-12-2003, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
I've argued the concept of homosexuality lacks an ethical form, not that gays or lesbians are wrong. If you disagree, then please correct me by offering an ethical form. Short of an ethical form then homosexuality becomes a fetish. A fetish doesn't determine a person's identity because a fetish is non-essential.

Are you saying that all sexual relationships that are between adults of opposite gender have an 'ethical form'? What about people who have casual sex once or twice?

Do homosexuals who live together and adopt children have the same ethical form as a nuclear family and if not, why not?

Please define 'fetish'.

What is essential about heterosexuality? Some heterosexual people never marry or have children.

Helen

abe smith · 06-12-2003, 08:02 AM

and trying to wade thru these reams :) is going to take more time & dedication than I can summon... I do notice however the frequency of dk's use of references to *FORM* and "ethical form(s)". and this usage of dk's puzzles (and also wearies) me. I probably perceive his/this habit as Platonist, against the-which I have an irrational personal bias.
Uh; truth is, for a dirtyhanded diaperchanging asswiping potscrubbing old biologist of my sort, all this fantsy whaddyecall abstract palavering about something as sticky, smelly, primary, skin-hair-&-juicy as "(human) sexual behaviours" sure leaves me out-heyah scratching my... whatchamacallit it, and wondering what the hell you folks are talking about?
I wonder if dk ever has got the smell of human sexual juices on his fingers, you shd pardon my wet hand?

Bill Snedden · 06-12-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:
Did I say completely autonomous?.

No, did I?

In what way is an opposite-sex relationship autonomous and a same-sex relationship not autonomous? I don't see the difference as we're all dependent upon each other and the law to no differing extent.

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:
Perform all the necessary tasks essential to survive and prosper from one generation to the next.

Well, I've never heard of homosexuality causing an inability to eat, breathe, or locate shelter. As both hetero- and homo-sexuality further the happiness and well-being of persons of those orientations, both would seem to enable humans to prosper as well. That's two down.

Quote:

Bill: I see no reason to believe why same-sex relationships are any more or less necessarily stable than opposite-sex ones.
dk: My intent is not to persecute people with a same sex attraction.

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?

Quote:

Bill: Suitable to human nature: It seems self-evident that people have an innate desire to love and be loved. Human purpose isn't "written" in stone; people decide for themselves what brings meaning to their lives. Again, no reason to believe same-sex relationships are unable to meet this characteristic.
dk: Love does no harm, and I�m not out to persecute same sex attraction, that would be unethical.

Good. I'm glad to see you agree with me. That's all four right out!

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:
My intent isn�t to persecute same sex attraction, but to outline and ground the science of ethics using the nuclear family as the moral core. If you accept what I�ve presented so far, then same sex attraction becomes a fetish that stands/falls on its own merits.

Uh, where do you think you've presented anything that would lead to that conclusion?

You've outlined the four criteria of your "ethical form", and we've seen that none of them militates against homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality fits within your ethical form and should be considered ethical by your standards. If you accept what you've presented, you should therefore abandon your ad-hoc rationalizations and admit that there is no reason to consider homosexuality immoral.

Q.E.D.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr Rick · 06-12-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith
I'm late to this discussion/thread...

...you haven't missed much: just the usual inane, homophobic rationalizations masquerading as moral indignation getting exposed and summarily demolished.

dk · 06-12-2003, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

A child is a person, but pedophilia is attraction to the BODY, not to the PERSON.

Four questions...

How does one distinguish between ...
1) an attraction to a body?
2) an attraction to person?

3) How does one consent to have sex with a body?

4) How does one consent to have sex with a person?

I submit you're degenerating into a world that makes discernment impossible. Absent discernent ethics has no meaning at all.

06-12-2003, 08:02 AM	#407
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	I'm late to this discussion/thread and trying to wade thru these reams :) is going to take more time & dedication than I can summon... I do notice however the frequency of dk's use of references to FORM and "ethical form(s)". and this usage of dk's puzzles (and also wearies) me. I probably perceive his/this habit as Platonist, against the-which I have an irrational personal bias. Uh; truth is, for a dirtyhanded diaperchanging asswiping potscrubbing old biologist of my sort, all this fantsy whaddyecall abstract palavering about something as sticky, smelly, primary, skin-hair-&-juicy as "(human) sexual behaviours" sure leaves me out-heyah scratching my... whatchamacallit it, and wondering what the hell you folks are talking about? I wonder if dk ever has got the smell of human sexual juices on his fingers, you shd pardon my wet hand?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.