dk

dk: I've stated and shown homosexuality lacks the necessary ethical form. The assertion has been challenged. In an egotistical world (ethical system) one's attraction to a sexual object is self evident i.e. self justifying. Yet women are rarely pedophiles or rapists, making pedophilia and rape a function of sexual form not sexual orientation.
yguy: What does the last sentence mean, and how does its conclusion follow from its premise? What is "sexual form"?
dk: Freud explained gender identification (personality) as a function of id, ego, and superego determined by biology (genes) i.e. egotism. He accounted for the differences between men and women explaining that women were developmentally (phallic stage) castrated men. Erickson augmented Freud’s theory to subsume biological determinism with cultural/developmental influences independent of sexual orientation. Kinsey explained sexual orientation with a biologically(genes) determined sex-o-meter. In the 1970s the APA pulled homosexuality off the mental disorders list.

Rape was reassigned as a crime of violence, while pedophilia mysteriously remained a sexual disorder based solely on the sexually attractive object. Psychiatry literally dropped the ball on pedophilia because it lay “outside of the box” of the accepted theor(y)(ies). In an egotistical system gender rolls are assigned by cultural values, and the sex-o-meter determines sexual orientation by genetics. The accepted theory predicts disorders like pedophilia and rape be developmentally acquired, therefore evenly distributed across male and female gender(forms). This has shrinks scratching their heads, and while women have become more violent as our cultural becomes less sexist, women haven’t become pedophiles or rapists. There have actually been witch hunts accusing women day care workers of being pedophiles. The question remains open, is homosexuality biologically determined or culturally/developmentally acquired.

dk: : Freud reconciled the anomaly by saying women had a castrated superego. If there is an ethical form for homosexuality then this conflict needs to be resolved, or essentially homosexuality normalizes rape and pedophilia as self evident.
yguy: I don't understand this at all.
dk: I’m no fan of Freud but feminists were positively enraged about the idea of being mentally castrated men. This goes right to the heart of homosexuality because it pits egotism against male and female forms. This poses a fundamental challenge to the moral order, pedagogy, science of ethics, and the Rule of Law in the post modern era. The observation fundamentally reopens the question of what it means to be a woman and a man. It seems to me the proponents of gay and lesbian (bi, tri, quads) rights can't see the forest for the trees, hence have become a truly dogmatic lot.

dk

I love you Dr Rick.

keyser_soze

Newsflash, Freud wasn't the epitome of psychological insight, hence the backlash at his theoretical models. And hence the other models out there. So basically you're shoring up your rather disturbed behavioural model with the behavioural models of one truly messed up psychoanalyst from the days when cocaine was prescribed?

Hint: Freud was a world class screwball. Show me a psych who totally buys into freudian psych. and I'll show you someone who went into psych because he was too messed up to function in another field(and trust me, I know a lot of shrinks).

dk

I'm not a great fan of Freud, but without Freud egotism gets chucked, and homosexuality becomes just another fetish.

keyser_soze

No...it doesn't. Please study further, and try not to buy into the first flake's theory that matches up with what you WANT to be true. If you are not a great fan of freud(and to not be a fan, you must be acquainted with why everyone else despise him as well), then why espouse it as a supportive argument for your assertion? Because it's convenient? That is not the way to think rationally about anything. I posit that you need to figure out just WHY you feel the way you do, because there is no rational basis for it. Homosexuals are just wired wrong, it's chemical, and more than likely not repairable. It's like having green eyes, they just ARE. There is no more moral threat to the family from homosexuals than there was in the previous millenias.. Your argument of it being wrong because of disease spread has already been shown to be fallacious, and full of contradictions. You seriously need to find another pet topic, or stop arguing about this one, as your arguments are EXTREMELY faulty.

HelenM

What's an 'ethical form' - it seems to be a definition you made up which is confusing. It would help if you used language the same way as everyone else.

And as for this: "homosexuality normalizes rape and pedophilia as self evident" - most people can clearly see the difference between homosexual behavior - which refers to an adult peer-peer sexual relationship by mutual consent - and sexual acts of
violence perpetrated by one person against another person or child. Homosexuality does not normalize rape and pedophilia.

Helen

Bill Snedden

For that purpose and for that moment. It certainly doesn't mean that they become subordinate for the entire relationship. How absurd.

Exactly as I said. However, this behavior/arrangement certainly isn't limited to marriage. In fact, this is the way most healthy friendships work as well.

Irrelevant.

BZZZT! No, they don't. Your contention assumes that a momentary compromise or submission on the part of one immediately identifies him/her as somehow less than the other peer for the duration of the relationship. But that's simply absurd.

You also assume that two peers can't both submit themselves to the relationship between them...but wait, you already argued that they could...Ah, you've contradicted yourself yet again.

So? Friendships and marriages don't. That's essentially what we're discussing here, right? Personal relationships?

Frankly, I think "ethical form" is another one of your smokescreens. You don't appear to be able to explain it yourself in 5,000,000 words or less...

However, let's see what we've got so far:

Autonomous: You've said this means nation-state independence, but you still haven't connected it with same-sex relationships.

Capable: You've provided no context or meaning yet nor have you connected it with same-sex relationships.

Stable: You've provided no context or meaning yet nor have you connected it with same-sex relationships.

Suitable to human nature: It would seem that you indicated the definition of this as "biological function", but it's not yet clear. If true, however, you've merely begged the question.

If you're serious about pursuing this line of argument, we really need to get some definitions and context for these terms...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

dk

I'm not using any special notation or definitions. Ethics is by necessity normative and derived from some set or system of self evident principles. Therefore ethics explains human behavior in terms of an underlying reality. An ethical form projects upon appearances a normative basis to distinguish one thing from another. Egoism is a psychological explanation for human sexuality that distinguishes gender roles (learned, self evident) from sexual orientation (biologically determined, self evident). "if sexual orientation is biologically determined then one's gender_id (learned) should follow one's sexual orientation"... and that becomes the fundamental question the science of ethics evaluates. Ethics therefore governs (normalizes) sexual gender id and not sexual orientation. Pedophilia being a matter of sexual orientation (sexual attraction to a particular objectpre-pubescent children) should therefore be ethical. Since a child can't possibly consent to sexual relations, then consent can't possibly be an ethical consideration, therefore rape is also ethical. Secondly if gender-id is learned then pedophilia and rape should be distributed across m/f as a function of orientation not sex. On both counts egoism fails miserably. Pedophilia and rape are unethical, and women are rarely pedophiles or rapists. Egoism is therefore hopelessly and objectively flawed as the basis for ethical norms. I propose the nuclear family as the fundamental ethical norm that governs human sexuality.

Dr Rick

...he's not.

HelenM

Define 'self-evident'. Nothing that is being discussed on this board is universally 'self-evident' because if it were, there would be nothing to discuss - we'd all agree.

Ok, but why?

Helen