Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Now, all you have to do is demonstrate how tolerance for and acceptance of homosexuality has produced fewer births in the Netherlands, and you'll be on to something.

Machiavelli

Chuckle....

And from a person named 'everlastingtongue'... Did your partner give you that name

As long as it is 'in-addition-to', I think it's all good.

scigirl

Why is it ok for heterosexuals to participate in acts that are solely for pleasure, and not for homosexuals?

Do you think the following couples are allowed to have sex?

1) A couple who decides not to have children and undergoes a vasectomy or a tubal ligation?

2) A pregnant woman and her husband?

3) A post-menopausal woman and her husband?

4) A genetically infertile male or female and his/her partner?

Your idea when carried to the extreme is absurd, and smacks of religious rhetoric (are you catholic by any chance?) We as a society have figured out ways to separate sex from procreation, and we are very good at it. So freaking what?

scigirl

Machiavelli

One thing you continuously assume about my idea is that I would impose it on anyone or take them to an extreme.

Am I catholic? Does the pope shit in the woods?

Ain't it grand....

Procreation isn't my point here, my point is that hetero's have parts built for each other that allow them to experience something Homosexuals can't.

If you start talking about strap-ons, I'm bailing out.

Bill Snedden

No, your question is irrelevant regardless of whether or not ethics have meaning. Essentially, your "question" is a fallacy of distraction.

First, you completely missed the point re: McDonalds. I was referring to our national problem with obesity.

Second, all of that is interesting, but none of it militates against my point. There is certainly a calculus of benefit involved whenever we make these kind of choices as a society, but one of the principal "babies" (to use your expression) with all of them (and the one in question) is individual freedom.

Well, as to sensation becoming a reason to act, pain would be a very good example. That aside, reason also finds that the mouth functions to process and deliver food to the stomach as well as aid in speech functions. Does that mean that all other uses of the mouth are immoral? If I use it to hold my briefcase while I struggle with the door have I committed a sin? "Primary purpose" is a poor standard upon which to base a moral system.

"Pleasure" and "human freedom" are two material "babies" that militate against your attempted argument. However, the most telling would be that anal sex is most certainly not exclusive to nor necessary for homosexuality. There are homosexuals who are exclusively oral. As there is no necessary connection between "homosexuality" and "anal sex", any attempt to determine the moral status of the former based upon the moral status of the latter will inevitably be a failure. Not to mention that you also haven't demonstrated that anal sex is "evil".

As there's no necessary connection between promiscous sex and homosexuality, this is another non-sequitur.

Um, no, I'm talking to you. Unless you mean to argue that every male who engages in anal sex with another male does so explicitly intending to cause harm and spread disease, then you most certainly are arguing that the ethical status of an act is determined by unintended consequences.

And yet more irrelevancies. The willful and deliberate spreading of disasease is certainly unethical, but you have as yet failed to demonstrate any necessary connection between this and homosexuality.

I'm unsure of what you're saying in 2 and 4. Are you attempting to separate male and female homosexuality in this discussion? The discussion is about same-sex sexual attraction and activity. If you want to argue about whether certain sexual acts are or are not ethical, you're welcome to do so, but that has no necessary connection to same-sex activities. There simply are no sexual acts that are restricted to same-sex vs. opposite-sex interactions.

None of which contradicts anything I said. I'm glad to see that we agree.

Please reread what I originally wrote. You say that I'm "wrong", but your example says nothing essentially different from what I wrote.

Again not contradicting anything I've written. Surprise! We appear to agree.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but this is the same point I was making.

Again, you say you disagree and then go on to restate my point. This is getting confusing.

You say that I'm wrong, but then the rest of this statement does nothing to demonstrate my error. I can only assume that you either misspoke or you misunderstand.

I'm sorry, but this is fallacious. There is no necessary connection between a monogamous relationship and heterosexuality.

Nice polemic, but ultimately irrelevant. There is no necessary connection between "open sex" and homosexuality. There is also reason to suppose "open sex" per se is immoral; you certainly haven't given any.

Up to this point, your entire moral schema seems to be nothing more than a set of ad-hoc rationalizations designed to condemn a behavior that you find distasteful. I'll ask you the same question I asked yguy: Why is homosexuality immoral? You've provided no non-question begging reasons here; do you have any suggestions for moral standards against which this question can be decided?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bill Snedden

What does that have to do with anything? Women can enjoy oral and anal sex, yet these "parts" certainly weren't built for those purposes. What does "purpose" necessarily have to do with morality?

My head wasn't built to wear a hat. Are hats immoral?

The human body wasn't built for zero g. Does that make space travel immoral?

I think you'll find purpose a poor choice as a standard for a moral system.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

yguy

How impressive. Now all you have to do is explain WHY you choose one foundation or paradigm over the other. Therefore by your own reasoning all "rational moral schema" are irrational at base.

Back to square one.

yguy

It is not the tolerance for homosexuality per se that is the cause, but the tolerance for and de-facto encouragement of self-indulgent behavior in general which has weakened the moral character of Hollanders individually and the Netherlands as a whole. Children aren't produced because they aren't valued. "The Big O", OTOH, is highly valued, and anything which detracts from that pursuit is held in low esteem.

dk

dk: That's an interesting comment, and broadly illustrates how misinformed most people are about homosexuality.
Fr Andrew: Having been active in the gay community since I came out forty-five years ago, I tend to agree with you that many people are misinformed about homosexuality. Hence my remark about your ignorance.
dk:: First: I'm not sure homophobia extends to lesbians, and I knew a group of lesbians that appeared to despised effeminate men and women equally.

Fr Andrew: Yes...homophobia extends to lesbians. It's a recently invented word and it's precision and accuracy are still open to question, but most people (myself included) use it as Byrne Fone does in his Homophobia--A History:
"Homophobia names antipathy to homosexuality and to those who engage in it. To discuss that antipathy while avoiding locutions like "disapproval of boy-lovers" or "disgust with effeminacy in males" or "hatred of sodomites" or "fear of people who engage in homosexual behavior" or "prejudice against gay people", I use "homophobia".
It is not satisfactory, constructed as it is from a slang abbreviation for "homosexual" joined with "phobia", which means fear but not dislike."--p424
dk: Seems to me “homo” is short for the word homosexual, and phobia means an irrational fear, like hydrophobia or arachnophobia i.e. Phobia was a suffix Freud used to describe neurosis, and homosexual was another neurosis Freud invented. There’s no psychological basis for the word homophobia, it’s a derogatory term a gay psychiatrist invented to disparage Christians as fundamentally psychotic. I think the book was the called the Gay Agenda. Herbert Marcuse was really the architect of the 1960s New Left, he melded Freud, Marx and Hegel around the strategy that the “new left” release sexual deviancy to enflamed the passions of revolution to overthrow a corrupt society. The upshot was an underground drug culture that spawns terrorists, drug cartels that corrupt 3rd world governments, and the hiv/aids epidemic. Call me irrational but I think Marcuse had a bad idea on all counts. But who knows, maybe a cure for cancer will come out of hiv/aids research.

dk: Any person that broadly employs derogatory labels to demean “other” groups becomes a bigot.
Fr Andrew: True. Your point?
dk: Homophobe has no special medical, social or psychological quality and fits nicely into a group of derogatory pseudo scientific pseudonyms crassly employed to dehumanize others e.g. moron, imbecile, senile and homophobe.
Fr Andrew: See above.
dk: That’s what I call arrogance. I tend to dislike genuinely arrogant people, are that being irrational or homophobic? . By arrogant I mean… an exaggerate sense of self importance. The word “homophobe” defines itself, what you presented was spin.

dk: In many biblical instances God favored effeminate men over masculine men, most notably Jacob and Esau, but also in Cain and Able and even David and Saul.
Fr Andrew: Can you cite scripture to the effect that Jacob, Able, David or Saul were "effeminate"? Or that God may have thought that they were? Thanks.
dk: I won’t quote scripture, but… Jacob had to tie lambs wool on his arms to fool his blind father, to steal Isaac’s blessing from Esau. God showed favor to David hairless boy, when King Saul had proven himself on the field of battle as a capable general and fierce warrior. Cain was a macho hunter, and Able a humble farmer.

dk: One of the most prosperous groups of derogatory slurs is directed at masculine men… heyseed, bumpkin, clodhopper, hick, hillbilly, jake, rube, yokel,,,
Fr Andrew: Where I come from (the rural South), none of those words are associated with "masculine" men, but rather at the uncultured and unrefined.
And...I miss your point again.
dk: removed personal attack.

Bill Snedden

Not quite. Assuming one is a foundationalist (epistemologically speaking), the foundation of one's worldview is certainly neither rational nor irrational. However, to the extent one's values flow rationally from that foundation, a moral schema can indeed be rational.

At any rate, regardless of the baseline rationality or irrationality of any moral schema, which apply to both of us equally, we can certainly determine which foundation makes more sense in light of evidence and reason. "It just is" doesn't really seem to make any sense whatever, which is why I thought you'd appreciate the chance to lay out your values and explain why they demonstrate the immorality of homosexuality.

Remember, you are the one making a positive claim, here. The burden of proof rests squarely on you. If you're unable to support your claim, your opponents are justified in regarding it as questionable.

Regards,

Bill Snedden