Homosexuality (DH version)

[DoH]

I went back and reread the past couple pages of the pg version and you still don't articulate a reason as to why your naturalistic framework is good; all you do is classify things that you perceive as unnatural as Dre-evil, like contraception. I want you to tell us why you think things have to be natural to be acceptable, why if animal homosexuality is natural why isn't human homosexuality, and why you are imposing celibacy on yourself.

 

[Dre89]

I have to go through all this again?

I'm pretty sure I covered all of it.

By now, my opposition could probably come in and tell you what my answers would be, I've had to repeat them that many times.

 

[blazedaces]

I sadly have to repeat myself. Dre, any argument which uses the term "natural" contains a LOGICAL FALLACY. The example you mentioned above is perfect proof as to why. You already had a somewhat fluid definition (or lack thereof), but the one parameter you held onto was the point that animals cannot corrupt their nature. At that point evidence existed in the world that would make you concede your point that homosexuality was "good".

So we showed you that evidence. And guess what you did, just like every bigoted person before you... you changed your parameters/definitions/theory to FIT your conclusion... that homosexuality is wrong! Yes, I am calling you a bigot Dre because despite evidence and logic you would prefer to think homosexuality is wrong. Do you not see that this will just happen over and over again? If I argue for hours with you, finally get SOME parameter about what natural actually means... show evidence that contradicts your conclusion... you will just GO TO SOME BIGOTED PROFESSOR and change your theory again.

I asked you over and over again to define natural, because that is where your theory becomes fallacious. Because you will never provide a definition for natural, you will always change your theory after-the-fact to fit your conclusion. I said so in the first few posts of this thread... and lo-and-behold you've done it again. Are you still so blind even to simple facts like what constitute logical fallacies?

In conclusion you must do the following two things:

1. You NEED to provide a proper definition for natural. This definition can not include a word that is vague and needs defining as well. You can't say "as things were designed to be" ... because there is no design (by the way that statement is a fact, and if you understood how evolution works you would agree with me).

2. Explain how your theory could be shown to be false. Another words, your theory must be falsifiable.

It feels sometimes like we're arguing with you about a dragon in your garage, the argument goes like this:

You: There's a dragon in my garage.
Me: *opens the garage* ... I don't see a dragon
You: Fool! It's invisible.
Me: *throws a net into the garage* Wouldn't the net catch onto it even if it were invisible?
You: Fool! It can change shape.
Me: *Puts powder all over the floor* Even if it was small, we would still see footprints...
You: Fool! It can fly.
(Credit goes to snex for using this argument a long time ago)

Do you see how this goes on and on? You never specify anything about the dragon, so you always change what it can do so it can fit your original statement.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

LOL!!! "Fool!" that's awesome. Sorry, but blazed just won this thread, hands down, although the credit apparently goes to SNEX, so props to him too. Good smasher too.

Well so far I see a stalemate in progress. Indeed D'oh has done a fantastic job remaining calm, resolute, and in so doing has shown us that a competing framework to SC Theory needs to be upheld in order for it to be invalidated.

And from Dre. we see the opinion that SC Theory isn't enough to justify... itself. Yeah.

Things should not be okay simply because they don't harm anyone.

Anything else in the thread or previous threads on this subject is frankly detritus. The real ... meat of it, is this idea that just because everyone thinks it doesn't harm anyone, doesn't mean it's okay. He -may- even be going so far as to say that this fact precludes the notion that it's not harmful to begin with... that ... assuming it's okay because it's not harmful may in fact compromise a valid inspection of the thing itself.

I don't wish to put words in your mouth, Dre. but is that where you ultimately planned on going with this?

Now, I will admit it is difficult to say why I do not believe this without citing my own personal feelings on the matter. I am not a logician by trade, and I am not well versed in the mechanics of this particular discourse. I'll simply say that originally gay people struck me as odd, "you're doin' it wrong" kinda people, but as I got older, I realized that they can still form complex healthy relationships, that they still suffer and die, live and strive, survive and succeed just like anyone else, and so the only actual difference between a gay person and a straight person is their sexual preference, and that alone, is not enough to brand them criminal (tying back into the OP).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Things that harm people should be outlawed.

But I'm saying something shouldn't be permissable simply on the grounds that it doesn't harm anyone.

I'm just explaining the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. One of them harms people, and the other doesn't. So you can't really compare them.

(Credit goes to snex for using this argument a long time ago)

snex was awesome from what I've read. It's disappointing he left before I came; he's one of the great debaters I never got to debate against/with.

 

[DoH]

Your arguments about 'objective good' are completely fabricated and designed to reinforce your heteronormative idea of a family unit which is a social construct in and of itself. It essentializes human sexuality down to a tiny sliver of experience, that of procreation, rather than respecting and acknowledging the tapestry which its scope encompasses. Early in the PG version you said that heterosexual sex is natural because it is instinctual, it's human instinct for penises to enter vaginae. At the point in which you concede that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and therefore is inherently natural to them, how is it a corruption of the natural instincts we have as gay men? We are simply acting on our own instincts. We aren't corrupting our own nature; if anything, our nature is "corrupting" us from the heterosexual fold. Why is sex's only function to procreate? You have completely ignored the multifunctionality argument in my first post.

Yes, sex can be used to procreate. But it also can be used to express an emotional bond between two (or more!) people, for pleasure, and there are even health benefits for an active sex life. Your argument is tantamount to saying it's wrong to shine spike people with Fox because it was only designed to be a reflector of projectiles, or I shouldn't find boyfriends on grindr because my iPhone is only designed to make calls. You're communicating with us without speaking, and if humans were meant to do that we would all be telepathic, so you're obviously doing something wrong. This standard is ridiculous

Your argument that "the penis goes in the vagina without contraception" is natural - for heterosexuals. You essentialize humanity and human sexuality into one act, which not only denies agency to the homosexual population, but denies multifunctionality to sex, reducing it to one objective. This is bad for several reasons, primarily because it ignores the reality of sexual activity, and attempts to suppress a vital part of our culture. We have sexual urges, not only to produce children, but to scratch that itch, bust a nut, and get off; to quote Carrie Bradshaw "I just need to feel the weight of a man on top of me." If the point of gay sex is for to get that release (via ejaculation) its because ejaculation has more than one function. It releases a cocktail of hormones that make you feel good and want to do it again; if the only "correct" way was ejaculating in a vagina, wouldn't your natural instincts tell you that it's wrong to pull out and splooge on your partner's face? Besides not getting her pregnant (score!) it's also rich in vitamin E and is great at degreasing your skin. Ejaculation is not solely for procreation, and therefore neither is sex. There are additonal health benefits for regular sexual activity, including a decreased risk in prostate cancer in men; sex isn't just about making babies, its about keeping us healthy.

You also claim that any fetish is a corruption of human sexuality. Why can't it be an expression of human sexuality? Your argument whittles human sexuality down to one facet without exception, which not only contradicts science but probably your own natural instincts as well.

Dre, your train of thought - that homosexuality is unnatural because by deviating from the purpose of the sex act (procreation) it corrupts the natural act (I'm pretty sure that's your logic, feel free to iron out any kinks) - almost makes sense, but it involves putting on some blinders to the reality of human sexuality (this is the essentialism and heteronormativity I referenced earlier) though I'm not sure how you make the jump from deviating from the procreative sex to corrupts procreative sex; to me this is the same as anti-gay marriage advocates saying that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage, as gay marriage doesn't affect straight marriage, condoms and blow jobs and anal and reverse blumpkins don't mar procreative sex, as the ability is still there. Procreation isn't some sort of biological mandate, especially not for homosexuals, so why does their sexual expression have to have procreation as an endgame? Partnerships that people enter into don't have the requirement of making babies, nor should they! The end goal of sex can be expressing emotions and commitment to each other, personal gratification, even to obtain something in return.

Additionally I have yet to see an impact to "corruption of the natural act." What is the impact of that? What does that mean for us as people, what does that mean for gay people when we are doing the "corrupting"?

These flaws that we've mentioned (definitional/vagueness/arbitrary interpretations, essentialism/heterosexism in viewing human sexuality, and your refusal to engage in a debate about your framework

Spoiler

dude, I'm the only one who has debated with you about framework instead of strawmanning your arguments, and the only responses you have given are either a) I'm tired of repeating myself, or b) my lecturer has the answer but I'm not going to tell you,

) are all reasons why we should default to social contract or a rights based framework, as it functions best for solving issues of public policy/real life, and under that framework we should (and do) allow things that don't have negative impacts, or rather we don't arbitrarily attempt to regulate it, regulations must have their own unique warrants and merits, rather than blanket restrictions.

 

[Dre89]

Um this is alot to respond to but I'll try my best.

Blazed- Did you read what I said before? I said that NL has always accommodated for animal homosexuality, just that my personal argument which I used here didn't. I admitted that I lost the debate, in a competitive sense, because of that. But animal homosexuality doesn't refute stronger versions of NL, I just can't provide the answers for you because I don't know them. Any attempt on my behalf would just provide straw mans for those NL theories.

The reason why I keep debating people here is because I'm correcting mistakes in people's interpretations of me, or I'm re-explaining myself to someone who poses a question to me.

Sucumbio- That was a pretty good post, ever since the DH version was made you seem to be debating really well. Just to clarify a few things- I never said homosexuality was harmful. The only way I would perceive it as harmful as that if we were already assuming that homsoexuality was wrong (for an alternate reason other than causing harm, which I have attempted to propose) then it could be argued that public practice of it would be harmful in so far as it normalises and encourgaes more people to do it. But as I said, that would require an alternate reason for why it is wrong in the first place.

Secondly, if I understand correctly, you'e pretty much on the right track. Homosexuality has just been given the green light simply because it isn't harmful, which is what I'm critical of. To your credit, you started picking up on this ever since the DH version was made, which is what I've been trying to get everyone to focus on the entire time.

This is why when the PG one first started, I said I didn't want to argue, because people hadn't studied moral philosophies of previous eras. This is what I was getting at, that because they hadn't studied it, they were just going to assume that not causing harm=acceptable.

It even shows in Doh's post, where he more or less says "even if it is unnatural, what's the impact on humans?", simply assuming that the degree to which a physical/practical impact an act has on humanity is what determines its permissabiltiy or impermissability.

I also never argued that homosexuals were compromised in any aspect other than sexuality, such as love, mental health, goodness etc.

Krazyglue- I have never said homsoexuals are like pedohpiles. All I've said is that the attraction to the same gender is similar to the attraction to children, in that it is an attraction, which if acted upon, does not result in the natural act. Same goes for contraception sex etc.

Doh- That was a pretty good post too. However, yet again, you're showing you haven't read everything I've said. I'm not saying that merely all biological impulses are natural, becase then yes, homsoexuality, pedophilia, gluttony etc, would all be natural.

Finally, alot of you continuely argue for the importance of sexuality. So what do you suggest for those attracted to children or animals, or pretty much any sexuality you disagree with? If sexual gratification is so important, are you asking them to drastically compromise their health?

As soon as you start making exceptions for certain sexualities such as pedophilia etc. you are admitting that certain sexualites are wrong. Now you guys will say "because it's harmful" but they're not, it's only the act which is harmful.

Seeing that no sexuality is harmful, the fact that homosexuality is not harmful is not sufficient to make it deemed permissable, when there are other forbidden sexualities, which in themselves are not harmful either.

So again, if the gratification of the sexual appetite is fundamental to human well-being, are you asking those with forbidden sexualities to depirve themselves of such a state of well-being?

I don't see how the significance of sexual gratification in health serves as a justification for the acceptance of homsoexuality, since you're willing to deny people with other sexualities that gratification. If others are expected to deny themselves that gratification, why can't homosexuals?

 

[Deleted member]

"It's the act that is harmful."

That's the point. we're not calling creepy perverts that stalk your children people that do wrong. That is, until they act upon their desires.
Why is it wrong then? because then they are harming people (the children).

Now stop comparing pedophilia and homosexuality.


edit:
On another note, can you actually show us something that is "wrong" and isn't harmful to anyone that isn't related to sexuality?

 

[DoH]

It's a debate of impact calculus. There's no negative impact to homosexuality. There are harmful aspects to pedophilia and bestiality, mainly issues of consent, as well as the psychological repercussions of pedophilia. The alternative for these people to enjoy sexual release without breaking the law is, as you yourself have posited; to enjoy the land of fantasy and role play and masturbation. If watching Barney gets them off then at least it has their hands on their ***** and not our children.

When it comes to sex, I have a fairly open mind about what constitutes healthy sexual expression; however, I have some boundaries, mainly what I call the big five. They are, in no particular order, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, scatological play, and incest. All of these have tangible impacts that are reasons to deny them the status of legitimate sexual orientation, and relegate them to extreme, dysfunctional, and dangerous fetishes. Yes, in the past homosexuality was lumped into this same category, however all the arguments against homosexuality have been empirically denied, so on its own merits, it is elevated to a sexual orientation. I know a mind is like a parachute, and it only works when its open, but if you're going to be closed-minded about somethings, I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that kids, dead people, animals, ****, and relatives is a pretty good line.

And Dre, don't accuse me of being not up on my philosophy, especially when I'm the only one advocating a philosophical framework. I've studied pretty much everything from Plato to Foucault, and used it in debates as well. As I've stated before, the reason that we're functioning in a SC/consequence based framework is because you've yet to offer a framework that competes. The reason people have abandoned your philosophy for ours is because ours actually works to solve problems pragmatically, rather than relying on arbitrary ivory tower squabble.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed- Did you read what I said before? I said that NL has always accommodated for animal homosexuality, just that my personal argument which I used here didn't. I admitted that I lost the debate, in a competitive sense, because of that. But animal homosexuality doesn't refute stronger versions of NL, I just can't provide the answers for you because I don't know them. Any attempt on my behalf would just provide straw mans for those NL theories.

So some mysterious argument will prove homosexuality to be evil... but you can't provide it. Dre, why do you still believe homosexuality to be evil? If you don't have an argument for it, until you're provided that argument you should be willing to admit homosexuality to be "good" ... how do you justify your beliefs? This is ridiculous. Do you honestly choose beliefs first, then look for arguments to support them afterwards? What kind of backwards thinking is that (logically fallacious thinking, you can look it up)?

Secondly, if I understand correctly, you'e pretty much on the right track. Homosexuality has just been given the green light simply because it isn't harmful, which is what I'm critical of. To your credit, you started picking up on this ever since the DH version was made, which is what I've been trying to get everyone to focus on the entire time.

So wait, in your world all actions are evil ... UNTIL proven to be good? Not the other way around? Why? The burden of proof is on YOU to prove homosexuality is evil... not the other way around.

All I've said is that the attraction to the same gender is similar to the attraction to children, in that it is an attraction, which if acted upon, does not result in the natural act. Same goes for contraception sex etc.

Again, define natural. Stop using the word natural ANYWHERE in your argument without defining it.

Doh- That was a pretty good post too. However, yet again, you're showing you haven't read everything I've said. I'm not saying that merely all biological impulses are natural, becase then yes, homsoexuality, pedophilia, gluttony etc, would all be natural.

I would like to point out you're willing to say what natural "isn't"... but never have you gave a clear definition of what it is... the confusion around the subject is YOUR FAULT. An appeal to nature I will point out for the millionth time is a logical fallacy.

Finally, alot of you continuely argue for the importance of sexuality. So what do you suggest for those attracted to children or animals, or pretty much any sexuality you disagree with? If sexual gratification is so important, are you asking them to drastically compromise their health?

You understand moral theories correct? Utilitarian ethics? The most good for the most people? Pedophilia hurts the children involved much more than it helps the person receiving sexual gratification. The benefits outweigh the cost. Stop repeating this nonsense, this response was so obvious, please tell me you didn't see that coming?

As soon as you start making exceptions for certain sexualities such as pedophilia etc. you are admitting that certain sexualites are wrong. Now you guys will say "because it's harmful" but they're not, it's only the act which is harmful.

We're not saying any sexuality is wrong. We're not advocating thought crimes... stop going back to this. It's silly, we keep repeating the same stuff over and over...

Seeing that no sexuality is harmful, the fact that homosexuality is not harmful is not sufficient to make it deemed permissable, when there are other forbidden sexualities, which in themselves are not harmful either.

See above. No sexuality is harmful. Period.

So again, if the gratification of the sexual appetite is fundamental to human well-being, are you asking those with forbidden sexualities to depirve themselves of such a state of well-being?

Yes, it's like asking a drug addict in rehab to abstain from taking more drugs. The drugs may satisfy his urges, but in the end they are harmful to everyone around him, and inadvertently him too.

I don't see how the significance of sexual gratification in health serves as a justification for the acceptance of homsoexuality, since you're willing to deny people with other sexualities that gratification. If others are expected to deny themselves that gratification, why can't homosexuals?

Stop jumping subjects. I will go through the logical steps slowly, try to follow:

Premises:

1. Denying one of sexual gratification is harmful to one's health.
2. Homosexuals exist.
3. Pedophiles exist.
4. Pedophiles receiving sexual gratification harm children, often scarring them for life in the process.

Conclusions:
1. While not receiving sexual gratification is harmful to the pedophile's health, the costs to the child outweigh the benefits to the individual.

2. Homosexuals should be allowed to receive sexual gratification, since they gain sexual gratification (and their partner), but no one is harmed. In this case the benefits outweigh the non-existent costs.

Edit: Dre, this is NOT SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. This is act utilitarianism. I do not want you referring to my argument using the words social contract theory. An act is deemed good if it maximizes overall happiness ... period. That is act utilitarianism.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

...as I said, that would require an alternate reason for why it is wrong in the first place.

Can you think of one? I can think of a few, though I do not personally agree any of them are actually "wrong."

Homosexuality can tear families apart, for instance. It's not the homosexual's fault, of course, it's the fault of the family members themselves who are unable to accept the reality of the situation, but all too often this results in a destructive consequence to the family unit, which has been used to argue against homosexuality in general. I tend to not cite this as a wrongdoing do to the fact that families who are so unstable that something of this nature could unravel them should probably be dissolved anyway, to allow for a broader spectrum of influence to carry through. Family units are strongest when they include the most positive aspects of humanity and of cultural, spirituals and economic diversity. In a world where progression is paramount to tradition, this is the obvious choice.

Another less important example is the threat to population. This is a foolish reason mainly because most countries do not experience negative population growth. There are however some rare societies that do experience this, or are bordering on this, and it could prove fatal if those societies ended up with more homosexual couples than hetero. In those situations it's apparent that the society is suffering from deep seeded issues that have resulted in a cataclysm of sorts, and controlling sexual orientation would have little impact on the underlying causes that would need to be addressed.

These are but two examples, but as I said I do not personally view them as wrongs or therefore reasons to not endorse homosexuality. There are umpteen trite reasons that are purely bigoted, such as "they look strange in public, it makes me feel funny, they're so flaming, they all talk weird, etc etc" but these are of course not even reasons, they're excuses, and poor ones not even fit for discussion.

Secondly, if I understand correctly, you'e pretty much on the right track. Homosexuality has just been given the green light simply because it isn't harmful, which is what I'm critical of. To your credit, you started picking up on this ever since the DH version was made, which is what I've been trying to get everyone to focus on the entire time.

Fair enough. At this point I'd say that you'd have to inspect social norms in general to equate for yourself what you find is "the right reasons" to exist. Are there any? Is there any REAL purpose to existence, other than to not harm others? Well sure, there's tons. To contribute meaningfully to society, to further propagate the species, to uphold society for the greater good of all mankind, etc. Can gays not do this? Of course they can. They may go about it differently depending on which aspect you're inspecting, such as propagation (adoption, IVF, etc.) but this doesn't mean they're not furthering the species and in a positive way. "Simply because it isn't harmful" is disingenuous or inaccurate, I feel. We don't just think it's okay because it doesn't harm anyone. We think it's okay because as part of social construct, or "contract" as you've been saying, we believe that the rights of others to live life to its fullest and to be allowed to achieve happiness is of paramount importance to all.

This is why you've drawn upon the pedo analogy. Should we not be endorsing their needs as well? The problem with this analogy is that by endorsing a pedo, you jeopardize the health and safety of another human being. This is not clinically true for homosexuals. By default, we already know "it doesn't harm anyone" it's just that you've put the qualifier "simply" and that's dumbing it down too far. It's not by any means JUST okay because we think it's not harmful. It is okay AND it's not harmful. See the difference?

I also never argued that homosexuals were compromised in any aspect other than sexuality, such as love, mental health, goodness etc.

Once again that's fair enough, but the difficulty with this part of your analysis is that you've separated the sexual act from those other aspects of humanity like love, mental health, goodness, etc. I counter that indeed sexuality is ingrained in these things. That love-making for instance, is an integral part of being a "good" person, "loving" someone, maintaining a strong mental health, etc. The Sacred Band of Thebes for instance "was made up of male couples, the rationale being that lovers could fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers with no ardent bonds." Now though this particular example is arguable in terms of effectiveness, it's absolutely evidence that sex and love go hand in hand. The very concept of love-making is a human concept that we've actually started to see in other animals, that is, having sex for the pleasure and bonding experience rather than simply following gene-structured "orders" to procreate. I don't mean that to be evidence that it's "okay" by any means, just simple observation. I do however cite that love-making is not the same as procreating, and so for homosexuals, the sex act is simply all love-making, there's obviously no procreation involved, and this, though technically may appear on the surface as "unnatural" is not necessarily "wrong" as a result. Why? Well that's the toughest question to answer in all of this. It's not just because I say so, or because I think "why not!?" ... it's more that homosexuals are already "different" in that one aspect, their sexual preference, and so this translates into a broader difference, that they do not procreate -traditionally-. They do however still procreate -non-traditionally- through the aforementioned methods of IVF, adoption, etc.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Blazed and Krazy, your objections are good, and to be honest I'm not in the position to answer them. That isn't because they necessarily refute the theory, but because the argument they object to (that animal homosexuality is merely a failed attempt at achieving the natural end of sex) came from my lecturer not me. So there are answers to your objections, I just don't know them, and unlike in devil's advocate debates, I'm not familiar enough with them to respresent them adequately.

First of all, what ever happened when you asked your professor about this?

Krazyglue- I have never said homsoexuals are like pedohpiles. All I've said is that the attraction to the same gender is similar to the attraction to children, in that it is an attraction, which if acted upon, does not result in the natural act. Same goes for contraception sex etc.

In response to this, here's something you said earlier:

And I love how people make out that sexuality is so crucial to living, that gays absolutely need to have sex, but then when we come to pedos, apparently sexual gratification isn't that important to life anymore.

This implies that homosexuals having sex is the same as pedophiles having sex with children. Which it isn't, since the pedophile is actually causing harm to the child.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Firstly, the first humans didn't have access to IVF, nor do poor people, so I don't see how IVF is natural.

But, it's in our nature to design things and improve technology. IVF is one such technology. It also works towards a natural end, procreation. So, you could say it's natural. But you wouldn't, because your definition of natural is really vague, and we can twist it to form what ever shape we like. So it's natural in the same way planes and shoes are natural, as you would argue.

And whether it's natural or not doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it ruins the universalisation argument.

With regards to animal homosexuality, there's something I need to clear up. I initially made my argument unaware of this sexuality, so my argument was designed on the assumption that it did not occur.

When I found out animal homosexuality did occur, I admitted I'd reconsider my position, because it doesn't fit into my argument. However I spoke to lecturer about it, and he told me NL does accommodate it, and he told me how. So animal homosexuality doesn't refute NL, it just refuted my specific, weaker version of it.

But you said this here:

According to Aristotle, what distinguishes us from animals is that we have the potential to be otherwise than our own nature(4) . What that means is that an animal can only do what is good for it, what is natural, but humans can act in ways which would be considered inhumane, or unnatural, thus where we get our concept of moral good and evil, and why it is said only humans possess morality. This explains why we look down upon the rampant pursuit of excessive luxury and pleasure, because it lowers one to the desires of animals, yet we consider a serial killer on a far worse level than the greedy, because the sadistic killing of multiple humans is even lower than the level of animals.

And I'll ask again, if animals can corrupt their nature, what separates us from them?

So in terms of debating, it was a failure on my behalf, and I lost the debate as a result of it (not that anyone cares about the "debate" in a professional sense in this thread anymore, everyone is just here due to strong feelings on the subject). But that doesn't mean NL is flawed, or that homosexuality is necessarily is permissable, and there are alternate accounts of NL which accommodate animal homsoexuality.

I'm just trying to show you that in your philosophy, homosexuality is not morally wrong, or homosexuality is wrong, and your philosophy has problems. And if you've changed the philosophy, you're approaching this from, tell us all about it, and we might understand you. At the moment, you're just sounding like some guy with an unjustified opinion, whose trying to justify it with a philosophy that doesn't justify it.

And for the record, I've never used the Social Contract Theory in my arguments. I've used Act Utilitarianism, just like Blazed.

 

[Dre89]

Omfg if one more person says I'm comparing homosexuality to pedophilia I'm going to tear my hair out.

For goodness sake, yes I know that pedophilia harms people, and homsoexuality doesn't, I know there's a disticntion there.

People should know by now that I always accepted the distinction between the two. If people keep throwing out the accusation I didn't, I'm just not going to bother respond to their posts, because I have made it evident far too many times I know there is a distinction.

The Parika Killer: Self-mutiliation is an example of a wrong act that harms no one other than the offender.

Doh- I never said you weren't knowledgeable in philosophy, I just said you clearly haven't read all my previous posts (which is alot I admit).

And again, you're still assuming not harming others is the only criertia an act must meet to be acceptable.

As for providing an alternate framework, I provided a weak version of Thomist natural law theory. First you say that I don't provide an alternate framework, then you say people abandoned "my philosophy", but didn't you pretty much just say that I didn't have one?

Blazedaces- Well at least you provided a grounding (act utiliatarianism) for your beliefs. With regards to whether I believe homsoexuality or not, I'm on the fence at the moment, because despite my theory being proven wrong, theories very similar to mine do account for animal homosexuality, so I do feel I am sort of on the right track. The reason why I'm still debating here is to correct misinterpretations of my argument, and to counter flawed arguments. I personally feel my weak NL still counters every argument here, except for the animal homsoexuality one, so I attempt to counter all points except that one.

As for a defintiion of natural, it's the ends we are designed to move towards. We are clearly sturctured to desire and benefit food for example. Sex is another obvious one. That doesn't mean all impulses are good, because we know that if everyone murdered babies, apart from that being disturbing, civilisation would end.

So I look at sex. To me, it's clearly designed for procreation, I've shown why before in the PG thread, so I don't need to go into it again. I've shown that biologically, the act is not designed to be used other than for the ejaculation into the woman, you can go back to the PG thread and read it if you want.


In fact, I'm pretty sure I did explain what I meant by natural at the start of the PG thread. Summing it up quickly, what's natural are the ends we are designed to move towards, but you'll have to read the PG trhead if you wnat to refute me on that.

Look, this is getting too much for me. I say you elect someone to debate me, probably Blazed or Sucumbio, because they seem to have been debating me here the longest, and probably the most familiar with my arguments. Just elect someone and I'll 1v1 them, that way, I can respond to every single argument they put forward.

 

[El Nino]

Edit: Oh ****, you adhere to the concept of intelligent design? My bad. Ignore this post.

 

[Dre89]

It depends what you mean by intelligent design.

I believe that the world was created by God, but I don't believe that the world is only 6000 years old, or that evolution is necessarily untrue.

Even if I was a Catholic, Catholics aren't required to commit to a scientific theory on the formation of the Earth, because the Church has never claimed one.

People have this misunderstading that Catholic interpretation of Genesis reads as literal, or that Genesis is providing a scientific truth, wheni n fact the onyl truth it is inteded to provide is theoligcal.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Way to completely ignore my post Dre.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11314943&postcount=92

Omfg if one more person says I'm comparing homosexuality to pedophilia I'm going to tear my hair out.

For goodness sake, yes I know that pedophilia harms people, and homsoexuality doesn't, I know there's a disticntion there.

People should know by now that I always accepted the distinction between the two. If people keep throwing out the accusation I didn't, I'm just not going to bother respond to their posts, because I have made it evident far too many times I know there is a distinction.

I showed an example of where what you said was (or at least seemed like it was) comparing homosexual sex and pedophile sex.

As for a defintiion of natural, it's the ends we are designed to move towards. We are clearly sturctured to desire and benefit food for example. Sex is another obvious one. That doesn't mean all impulses are good, because we know that if everyone murdered babies, apart from that being disturbing, civilisation would end.

So I look at sex. To me, it's clearly designed for procreation, I've shown why before in the PG thread, so I don't need to go into it again. I've shown that biologically, the act is not designed to be used other than for the ejaculation into the woman, you can go back to the PG thread and read it if you want.

Blazed and I have explained time and time again that humans are also biologically engineered to want pleasure. Which is why some of us posed the question: "If food is only meant to be used for our survival, do you think it is wrong whenever someone eats something like milk chocolate, which tastes pleasurable but has little to no health benefits?"

I can respond to every single argument they put forward.

False. I just quoted you where you specifically said you couldn't answer the questions raised by me or blazed. And I asked you what happened when you asked your professor. And you ignored it.

And yeah, I'm sorry you're getting ganged up on, but that's just how it works. I didn't ask for a 1 on 1 debate every other post in the Hardcore Drugs thread. Maybe it wasn't quite as many people, but there were still usually around 3 walls of text against me (Bob Jane, Del, manhunter). And several other people chipped in smaller posts (Crimson King, rvkevin, BPC, blazed, Overload). To be fair, Sucumbio did help me out once in a while. What you're essentially facing is about 4 main opponents (blazed, Suc, Bob Jane, D'oh), and a few smaller contributors (me, El Nino, Paprika Killer, gm jack). It's not that bad.

And I think I know what irks some people, Dre.

1. Dre: "I always have to repeat myself"
Well look at what I'm doing right here.

2. Dre: "Too many people against me"
If you're only going to respond to some of the posts, don't complain there's too many.

3. Dre: "Why are you ignoring my post!?"
Sorry, missed it. It's not like you never miss my posts, you know.


I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but I'm just observing what I'm seeing. This is not meant as a personal attack.

 

[El Nino]

So I look at sex. To me, it's clearly designed for procreation

So you don't think that one thing can have multiple functions? I mean, have you ever used a t-shirt as a bandage?

 

[Dre89]

Way to completely ignore my post Dre.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11314943&postcount=92

I showed an example of where what you said was (or at least seemed like it was) comparing homosexual sex and pedophile sex.[/QUOTE]

I honestly never saw that post.

With regards to what my professor said, I'll wait untill I see him next ask him (which will be in about 2 days), so I can do more justice to it in the explanation.

And I wasn't comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. I'm saying is that some of you are using the fact that sexuality is so crucial to human well-being as a reason why homosexuality should be tolerated, yet there are other sexualities that you want surpressed, so essentially you're askng people to compromise their health.

Blazed and I have explained time and time again that humans are also biologically engineered to want pleasure. Which is why some of us posed the question: "If food is only meant to be used for our survival, do you think it is wrong whenever someone eats something like milk chocolate, which tastes pleasurable but has little to no health benefits?"

I understand humans are designed to want pleasure, but the sex act isn't designed to have pleasure as an end, the pelasure is just there to entice ou into the act, and the most instense pleasure, the ejaculation, is the reward for injecting the seed into the woman.

Pleasure and pain are there to alert you to what's desirable and undesirable. That's why we feel pain, our body is alerting us to the fact something undesirable has occurred.

Yes nowadays, there are plenty of artifical things which are pleasurable, but not good for us, but It hink most natural, non man-made things which give us pelausre are good for us.

False. I just quoted you where you specifically said you couldn't answer the questions raised by me or blazed. And I asked you what happened when you asked your professor. And you ignored it.

As I said before, I'll ask him what his stance on it is, then get back to you.

And yeah, I'm sorry you're getting ganged up on, but that's just how it works. I didn't ask for a 1 on 1 debate every other post in the Hardcore Drugs thread. Maybe it wasn't quite as many people, but there were still usually around 3 walls of text against me (Bob Jane, Del, manhunter). And several other people chipped in smaller posts (Crimson King, rvkevin, BPC, blazed, Overload). To be fair, Sucumbio did help me out once in a while. What you're essentially facing is about 4 main opponents (blazed, Suc, Bob Jane, D'oh), and a few smaller contributors (me, El Nino, Paprika Killer, gm jack). It's not that bad.

It's not the end of the world, but it hinders the productivity (in terms of quality) of the debate.

And no, that's not how a civil debate is supposed to work. Ganging up on one person is what people do when converting that person to their position, or proving them wrong, takes priority over having civil debate, the latter being what this hall is for.

And I think I know what irks some people, Dre.

1. Dre: "I always have to repeat myself"
Well look at what I'm doing right here.

If I didn't have so many people throwing walls of text at me, yo uwouldn't have to repeat yourself.

2. Dre: "Too many people against me"
If you're only going to respond to some of the posts, don't complain there's too many.

I'm only responding to some of them because there is too many.

3. Dre: "Why are you ignoring my post!?"
Sorry, missed it. It's not like you never miss my posts, you know.

You're only against one person in this thread.

I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but I'm just observing what I'm seeing. This is not meant as a personal attack.

It's cool.

El Nino- I was always open to that possibility, but when I looked at it I realised the sole purpose of the sex act was procreation. My arguments for that should be fairly early on in the PG version.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So you don't think that one thing can have multiple functions? I mean, have you ever used a t-shirt as a bandage?

I use my undershirt as a hanky sometimes. Basically, there is nothing immoral about using something that it wasn't designed to do. I can use a spanner as a hammer, if I want to. I can use my headphone set as a microphone. Are these acts immoral?

 

[Dre89]

No they're not immoral. They're artificial objects, so their purpose can be altered to whatever end.

To save time, let's take a natural object such as an apple, for example. Apples are obviously meant to be food. Now suppose I make apple juice, and use it as fuel for a robot I'm making (just suppose that's actually possible).

What's being corrupted, and only to a small extent, is the apple, not the human. In fact, the apple is being used for a human good.

What's immoral is when a human corrupts their own nature, not something like an apple. Now you may say "well then can a human kill another human and use their blood as fuel for the robot?". Whilst this aims at some human good (the technology), by killing someone and using them in such a way, you're are also severely corrupting your own nature.

That's why Thomas Aquinas said we shouldn't needlessy harm/torture animals, because it reflects badly on the person, such an act corrupts their nature.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

No they're not immoral. They're artificial objects, so their purpose can be altered to whatever end.

To save time, let's take a natural object such as an apple, for example. Apples are obviously meant to be food. Now suppose I make apple juice, and use it as fuel for a robot I'm making (just suppose that's actually possible).

What's being corrupted, and only to a small extent, is the apple, not the human. In fact, the apple is being used for a human good.

What's immoral is when a human corrupts their own nature, not something like an apple. Now you may say "well then can a human kill another human and use their blood as fuel for the robot?". Whilst this aims at some human good (the technology), by killing someone and using them in such a way, you're are also severely corrupting your own nature.

That's why Thomas Aquinas said we shouldn't needlessy harm/torture animals, because it reflects badly on the person, such an act corrupts their nature.

So it's only immoral to alter the purposes of natural objects?

What about something that blurs the line? Let's say, GM crops. Their purpose is to provide food/product for our use. But they were in part designed by us. Their "purpose" (if they even have one) before genetic modification was to breed. Are they natural? Or artificial?

And even so, most crops we have, apples included have undergone artificial selection, to the point where they are no longer natural?

So, what is natural?

 

[KrazyGlue]

And I wasn't comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. I'm saying is that some of you are using the fact that sexuality is so crucial to human well-being as a reason why homosexuality should be tolerated, yet there are other sexualities that you want surpressed, so essentially you're askng people to compromise their health.

I get that, but that brings up the point that pedophilia affects other people's health and homosexuality doesn't. That's the difference.

I understand humans are designed to want pleasure, but the sex act isn't designed to have pleasure as an end, the pelasure is just there to entice ou into the act, and the most instense pleasure, the ejaculation, is the reward for injecting the seed into the woman.

Pleasure and pain are there to alert you to what's desirable and undesirable. That's why we feel pain, our body is alerting us to the fact something undesirable has occurred.

Yes nowadays, there are plenty of artifical things which are pleasurable, but not good for us, but It hink most natural, non man-made things which give us pelausre are good for us.

How do you know what sexuality is designed for? Why isn't food designed only for survival but sexuality is? What's the difference?

----------------

Sorry about the other stuff, I was in a bit of a bad mood. I could have put it in a nicer way; however I still believe in what I said. If you have a different opinion on a subject than most people do (i.e. you on homosexuality or me on marijuana), you have to be prepared to receive a lot of opposing arguments and be able to respond to them. Now I do think people should be more respectful towards you, but I also sometimes understand why they get irked.

 

[Dre89]

Bob- My post answered that.

I said it's not immoral to corrupt natural objects, which were there for our use to begin with, for a human good.

What's immoral is corrupting a human, so killing another human being is an inhumane act, therefore the killer is corrupting their nature.

Krazy- The reason why I think sex is meant purely for procreation is because of the sturcture of the act. Ha dit been sturctured differently, then yes perhaps pelasure could be an alternate end. This was all explained in the PG version.

 

[El Nino]

I use my undershirt as a hanky sometimes.

Well, okay, as long as it's for the forces of good, not evil.

Apples are obviously meant to be food.

Uh, I thought apples were the carriers of the seeds of trees. That is, if they're "meant" for anything, I'd think they were meant for the procreation of trees, primarily.

edit:

What's immoral is corrupting a human, so killing another human being is an inhumane act, therefore the killer is corrupting their nature.

Lulz. There are few things that come more natural to human beings than killing, particularly a human being of another tribe.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Krazy- The reason why I think sex is meant purely for procreation is because of the sturcture of the act. Ha dit been sturctured differently, then yes perhaps pelasure could be an alternate end. This was all explained in the PG version.

It's a 534-post thread, so forgive me, but I didn't read all of it.

I searched for the word "structure", and the most relevant post seemed to be this one: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10512925&postcount=236

If you meant something else, please explain.

If you did mean that post, nothing in there explains what the difference is between homosexuality and eating milk chocolate in terms of favoring pleasure over survival.

 

[Sucumbio]

Basically because ejaculation is the "end result" of sexual stimulus in males, and that ejaculate is "meant" only for insemination, the whole sex act must be "only" for procreation.

Ergo anything deviating from this is a "corruption " of the sex act.

I so want to be vulgar here, but I won't.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Basically because ejaculation is the "end result" of sexual stimulus in males, and that ejaculate is "meant" only for insemination, the whole sex act must be "only" for procreation.

Ergo anything deviating from this is a "corruption " of the sex act.

I so want to be vulgar here, but I won't.

But why? Why can it "only" be for all those things? (Dre, please don't respond with "I already explained it; go find it yourself".)

And furthermore, why is food not "only" for survival? Why can food and drink be used solely for pleasure but not sex? Why can we buy designer clothes that aren't necessary for survival? Why can we do anything that isn't for survival other than sex? Why in the hell is sex the only thing in the entire world that can't be done just for pleasure?

 

[Sucumbio]

But why? Why can it "only" be for all those things? (Dre, please don't respond with "I already explained it; go find it yourself".)

And furthermore, why is food not "only" for survival? Why can food and drink be used solely for pleasure but not sex? Why can we buy designer clothes that aren't necessary for survival? Why can we do anything that isn't for survival other than sex? Why in the hell is sex the only thing in the entire world that can't be done just for pleasure?

Well eating for means other than survival isn't necessarily "good" for you. Eating for pleasure can lead to obesity for example. Think of things like, I dunno, pie (ha) Pie IS good, it's ... it can be nutritious, etc. But in its traditional form, it's a dessert. The very concept (in America, anyway) of dessert is that it's a "treat" to -indulge- in. People can become addicted to sweets, to desserts, and this is obviously bad. So from this minor perspective you can see that eating or drinking outside of your daily nutritional requirements, is a "corruption" of that act... of eating. Yeah.

Same with clothes. Most cheap clothes accomplish the goal of covering ones self and providing warmth/protection from the elements. "Designer" clothes are an indulgence, not "necessary" normally... they either tend to waste fabric, don't use ENOUGH fabric, lol thus losing utility, etc. For whatever reason they're just expensive, name-brand etc. instead of being plain old clothes that perform their intended and useful function. Therefore, in this minor perspective you can see that designer clothing is a "corruption" of the intention for clothes.

In both cases it's only a minor perspective, though one may argue that the food thing is important enough to warrant calling it a major perspective, I personally do not. I like pie. :D

And as for the sex thing, well based on the chain of events: stimulation -> ejaculation -> insemination, pregnancy, birth.. this is the best purpose for these things. Now using the same model as with the food and clothes, it's possible to be stimulated and ejaculate somewhere else other than inside a woman, but this wouldn't result in pregnancy normally, so from that minor perspective, it's lost it's purpose. "Wasting sperm" if you will. The biology of sex would suggest that Sperm isn't meant to be wasted, but that we choose to waste it, for whatever reason. This is his grounds for calling it a "corruption."

(Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you Dre., feel free to chime in.)

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, at least you're being consistent.

So let me get this straight, you're advocating that milk chocolate and designer clothes shouldn't be used because they're not necessary to survival? Just trying to understand the implications of what you're saying. Because, you know, if that is what you're saying, 99% of what we do and what we use is immoral and should be removed from society.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well yeah, okay... that's actually taking things to the next step. This is why I coined these points as "minor" perspectives. Making the observation that chocolate milk is an indulgence, for instance, may be technically correct, but... what of it?

Now to take that leap from the observation to the application, you have a choice. IS the indulgence necessarily "wrong" or isn't it? And if so, why? If not, why not? Dre has formulated his argument based upon the speculation that "social contract" (which is still an improper use of the term, but whatever) deems the choice we make is "no, it's not wrong" and "because it doesn't harm anyone." He finds the answer to those 2 questions to be fallacious, because "it doesn't harm anyone" isn't a good enough reason to warrant "no, it's not wrong."

In the case of chocolate milk, there can be many people who'd say "no, it's wrong." and the why would be "because it's not healthy for you." For instance my mother used to bar us from drinking hi-C drink boxes, same with koolaid. I know, what a travesty, lol! But she had good intentions. By preventing us from "indulging" in sweet drinks, our thirst was instead quenched with 2% Milk, or diet soda. This isn't the point, though. The point is, that it's not far fetched to to see a viable reason upon which chocolate milk can be deemed bad. This SHOULD mean (in following Dre.'s model) that there should be a viable reason for Homosexuality to be deemed good. "Because it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't a good enough reason so therefore it's not viable.

So now we're faced with another question. Why isn't the answer "because it doesn't hurt anyone" not good enough?

This is where the real slippery slope appears, and why I personally think this whole framework fails miserably. Regardless of what indulgence you inspect, sweets, clothes, sex, etc... they're all going to have a basic "is it okay or not" coin, with some people holding one side up, and other people holding the other side up. It's mostly subjective. There's no real way to categorically say whether or not indulging in non-procreational sex is bad, unless that's what you believe, in other words. So as a framework for arguing that "because it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't good enough a reason to endorse homosexuality, I can only think "what other reason do you need?" In this particular case, anyway, there isn't much to be said that isn't strictly personal, or based at least on personal decrees.

For instance Roman Catholicism under Pope Benedict holds that homosexual couples when having sex are committing a sin source; it's a "disorder" and something to be corrected. Dre. has not even gone that far. He's not offering any counter to "it's not harming anyone" and the reason I speculate is because you can't offer any without sounding as bigoted as Pope Benedict! If I were asked to justify homosexual behavior and the sex act, my response would be something like... I dunno, that it's okay because it's between two consenting adults who have dominion over their own ****ing bodies. ><

 

[blazedaces]

Omfg if one more person says I'm comparing homosexuality to pedophilia I'm going to tear my hair out.

For goodness sake, yes I know that pedophilia harms people, and homsoexuality doesn't, I know there's a disticntion there.

People should know by now that I always accepted the distinction between the two. If people keep throwing out the accusation I didn't, I'm just not going to bother respond to their posts, because I have made it evident far too many times I know there is a distinction.

Dre, the problem isn’t with your intention (not to compare the two), but with your communication skills (you appear to compare the two). Sorry Dre, but if 10/10 people think you’re comparing the two, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else, but the problem is how you communicated your idea. In the future, please try to explain yourself in a different way. If you would like an example of how to do so please feel free to ask.

Blazedaces- Well at least you provided a grounding (act utiliatarianism) for your beliefs. With regards to whether I believe homsoexuality or not, I'm on the fence at the moment, because despite my theory being proven wrong, theories very similar to mine do account for animal homosexuality, so I do feel I am sort of on the right track. The reason why I'm still debating here is to correct misinterpretations of my argument, and to counter flawed arguments. I personally feel my weak NL still counters every argument here, except for the animal homsoexuality one, so I attempt to counter all points except that one.

So let me get this straight… you have no contention with my grounding of act utilitarianism as a means to justify homosexuality… therefore homosexuality is justified under my framework? If not, what is your problem with the argument?

Since you don’t respond to many of what I would call “good counter-arguments” I’m not going to get into every point, but I’ll repeat again that any argument which appeals to nature is a logical fallacy, including yours.

As for a defintiion of natural, it's the ends we are designed to move towards. We are clearly sturctured to desire and benefit food for example. Sex is another obvious one. That doesn't mean all impulses are good, because we know that if everyone murdered babies, apart from that being disturbing, civilisation would end.

Firstly, as I and others have mentioned before replacing the vague non-existant definition of the word natural with “the ends we are designed to move towards”, another vague description that is subject to your opinion mostly, we are still left with nothing substantial to argue with you against. This is why appeal to nature arguments are all fallacious. You don’t define your argument, so you just change it as you go along depending on what we throw at you. You simply adjust your statements so your definition ALWAYS fits. Your explanation above is a perfect example, food and sex are obvious impulses that “we are designed to move towards” … but for whatever reason according to you “murdering babies” is not… why? Civilization ending doesn’t have anything to do with your definition of the word natural. I’m ready to hear you change your definition so that it does right after reading this, so I’m waiting…

Furthermore, as explained in my post above, we are not “designed” for anything. Evolution is not “a plan”. As I said before, we ONLY get hungry because our ancestors got hungry, and passed that trait to us. That’s all. There is no hidden meaning behind it. I really don’t want to, but I will explain the basics of evolution to you if that’s what it takes to convince you of this fact.

So I look at sex. To me, it's clearly designed for procreation, I've shown why before in the PG thread, so I don't need to go into it again. I've shown that biologically, the act is not designed to be used other than for the ejaculation into the woman, you can go back to the PG thread and read it if you want.

No, you can go back and quote yourself or repeat yourself. I’m not searching back through the entire thread for this explanation, though I do recall it partially. It was a horrible argument for why sex is “soley” “designed” for procreation (fact of the matter is Dre, it’s NOT). Sex is not designed. If it were designed, we wouldn’t release waste (urine) from the same tract that we release semen. But you don ‘t need to know that to realize the ONLY reason sex works the way it does is because our ancestors had sex this way and passed it onto us. Period.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I did explain what I meant by natural at the start of the PG thread. Summing it up quickly, what's natural are the ends we are designed to move towards, but you'll have to read the PG trhead if you wnat to refute me on that.

No I won’t. Look Dre, the expectations for the debate hall and in general ANY FORUM IN EXISTANCE have always been such that if you want to provide an argument YOU must provide it… you’re welcome to quote yourself, link to your own post, or link to someone else’s information. But you can’t just say GO READ IT SOMEWHERE IN A THREAD.

I’ve read this definition previously and pointed out how it’s not valid. Change your definition or see the obvious truth that your argument is logically fallacious.

Look, this is getting too much for me. I say you elect someone to debate me, probably Blazed or Sucumbio, because they seem to have been debating me here the longest, and probably the most familiar with my arguments. Just elect someone and I'll 1v1 them, that way, I can respond to every single argument they put forward.

Dre, I’m really sorry. I know you’re being honest. But we’ve all been where you are and no one before you has had this much of an issue. I don’t know why you do. But, if you want I’ll be happy to be the person who 1v1 debates you… or you can pick Sucumbio, up to you of course. No one obviously is forcing you to respond to anyone.

It depends what you mean by intelligent design.

I believe that the world was created by God, but I don't believe that the world is only 6000 years old, or that evolution is necessarily untrue.

Even if I was a Catholic, Catholics aren't required to commit to a scientific theory on the formation of the Earth, because the Church has never claimed one.

People have this misunderstading that Catholic interpretation of Genesis reads as literal, or that Genesis is providing a scientific truth, wheni n fact the onyl truth it is inteded to provide is theoligcal.

I love how you always claim that everyone but “Catholics” are wrong… I don’t know if you realize Dre, but it’s not that “People” misunderstand Catholic interpretations… it’s that many Catholics ACTUALLY INTERPRET genesis literally. There are people out there (and who have come to the debate hall in the past) who still literally argue that the world is only 6000 years earth. Hell, there’s even a flat earth society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) … not exactly related but still funny.

Sorry, but Intelligent Design is a belief, a faith if you will … it is not a scientific theory. In order to be a scientific theory it has to subjugate itself somehow to being falsifiable. Until that point in time it’s just someone’s ponderings…

I realize you are not saying it is… so if you want to ignore this part feel free, I just wanted to add that in…

I understand humans are designed to want pleasure, but the sex act isn't designed to have pleasure as an end, the pelasure is just there to entice ou into the act, and the most instense pleasure, the ejaculation, is the reward for injecting the seed into the woman.

What about the most intense pleasure for a woman? She receives the most intense pleasure usually (not every women in the world, but most women) by stimulation of the clitoris. Most women (this is a fact, if you don’t believe me I can provide a source) cannot be stimulated to orgasm by insertion alone. And why is procreation the end? Who decides these things? You? Do you realize how incredibly flawed your argument is yet? Do you not see that you have no real objective criteria for evaluation the “natural value” of any given act? How natural is something? You have no answer to this. It’s kind of up in the air… and depending on how you want to view something you pick and choose what are the means and ends to any act.

Your apple example below is perfect proof of this. You chose an apple as being naturally food… because [highlight]if eating an apple is wrong your whole theory is horribly flawed[/highlight]… but guess what Dre… an apple is “primarily designed” to make more apple trees. It is another means of procreation. I put quotes around the words “primarily designed” because of course there is no such thing. Apples are another example of this, as we have genetically bred them till we bred the apples we prefer to eat most. Apples found in natural forests (in this case the word natural means not tampered by man, which is not necessarily better or worse, see how I DEFINED the word, no one is confused by what I mean by this word) taste horrible.

Pleasure and pain are there to alert you to what's desirable and undesirable. That's why we feel pain, our body is alerting us to the fact something undesirable has occurred.

So what happens when pain or pleasure are wrongly applied? What happens when pain leads us to a course of action that is undesirable in the long run? Momentary pains/pleasures aren’t always the best means by which to make decisions. Drinking alcohol is pleasurable momentarily, but leads to disastrous health drawbacks, and probably more pain in the future if taken without moderation (even with moderation sometimes).

This is another perfect example of how you aren’t viewing things correctly. Pleasure and pain receptors are reactions that occur in our body to given stimuli. These reactions occur because they occurred in our ancestors. The often don’t make sense, and that’s because they aren’t “intended” to do anything. There is no design. Itching an area that has been infected with poison ivy is detrimental, but it’s what our first impulse to remove pain and seek pleasure tells us to do… I could give a million examples, but I digress…

Yes nowadays, there are plenty of artifical things which are pleasurable, but not good for us, but It hink most natural, non man-made things which give us pelausre are good for us.

Weed, most types of mushrooms, uncooked meats, unclean water, god this list is retardedly long. I mean seriously Dre, do you not realize how much we modify EVERYTHING non man-made to make it so it indeed IS good for us…

I mean even healthy things like fruits and vegetables have to be inspected, cleaned, often parts that are bad have to be removed, parts that we cannot eat. And even those fruits and vegetables we HARVEST which means they are man-made to begin with.

The road also goes both ways. What about natural diseases/viruses/malformations (some do give us pleasure too). Do we ignore these things in your “everything natural is good” viewpoint?

El Nino- I was always open to that possibility, but when I looked at it I realised the sole purpose of the sex act was procreation. My arguments for that should be fairly early on in the PG version.

Provide them.

No they're not immoral. They're artificial objects, so their purpose can be altered to whatever end.

What is the difference between an artificial object and a “natural” object. I know you probably are referring to my definition of natural, but now you’re committing a logical fallacy by mixing up word definitions. Please try to be clear and consistent with your wording.

To save time, let's take a natural object such as an apple, for example. Apples are obviously meant to be food. Now suppose I make apple juice, and use it as fuel for a robot I'm making (just suppose that's actually possible).

What's being corrupted, and only to a small extent, is the apple, not the human. In fact, the apple is being used for a human good.

I’ve already been through this horrible example, but to point out something: according to your theory, drinking apple juice is JUST AS IMMORAL as having homosexual sex… do you realize how stupid this sounds?

Krazy- The reason why I think sex is meant purely for procreation is because of the sturcture of the act. Ha dit been sturctured differently, then yes perhaps pelasure could be an alternate end. This was all explained in the PG version.

Explain it or refer to where you explained it.

-blazed

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Isn't the reason why sex is enjoyable is to make organisms procreate? So sex is made for two different things, people can have sex for whatever reason they want. That's none of our buisness whether it's to procreate or not.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well yeah, okay... that's actually taking things to the next step. This is why I coined these points as "minor" perspectives. Making the observation that chocolate milk is an indulgence, for instance, may be technically correct, but... what of it?

THIS is where the problems start. Who determines what's "major" and "minor"? Dre?

In the case of chocolate milk, there can be many people who'd say "no, it's wrong." and the why would be "because it's not healthy for you." For instance my mother used to bar us from drinking hi-C drink boxes, same with koolaid. I know, what a travesty, lol! But she had good intentions. By preventing us from "indulging" in sweet drinks, our thirst was instead quenched with 2% Milk, or diet soda. This isn't the point, though. The point is, that it's not far fetched to to see a viable reason upon which chocolate milk can be deemed bad. This SHOULD mean (in following Dre.'s model) that there should be a viable reason for Homosexuality to be deemed good. "Because it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't a good enough reason so therefore it's not viable.

Yeah, apparently "because it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't a valid excuse for homosexuality, but it is valid for just about everything else. >.<

So now we're faced with another question. Why isn't the answer "because it doesn't hurt anyone" not good enough?

This is where the real slippery slope appears, and why I personally think this whole framework fails miserably. Regardless of what indulgence you inspect, sweets, clothes, sex, etc... they're all going to have a basic "is it okay or not" coin, with some people holding one side up, and other people holding the other side up. It's mostly subjective. There's no real way to categorically say whether or not indulging in non-procreational sex is bad, unless that's what you believe, in other words. So as a framework for arguing that "because it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't good enough a reason to endorse homosexuality, I can only think "what other reason do you need?" In this particular case, anyway, there isn't much to be said that isn't strictly personal, or based at least on personal decrees.

Agreed.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So it's only immoral to alter the purposes of natural objects?

What about something that blurs the line? Let's say, GM crops. Their purpose is to provide food/product for our use. But they were in part designed by us. Their "purpose" (if they even have one) before genetic modification was to breed. Are they natural? Or artificial?

And even so, most crops we have, apples included have undergone artificial selection, to the point where they are no longer natural?

So, what is natural?

Bob- My post answered that.

I said it's not immoral to corrupt natural objects, which were there for our use to begin with, for a human good.

I asked where do you draw the line between natural and unnatural? You didn't answer my question.

 

[Sucumbio]

THIS is where the problems start. Who determines what's "major" and "minor"? Dre?

Well, no actually that was my own usage. It's a minor (very minor) point to say that things are bad for you. I mean that's REALLY all his argument boils down to in the end: some things are bad for people, and are only tolerated because no one cares. It's like, well duh, lol. He's not exactly stumbled onto anything major with this, but instead he uses it as the basis for an entire precept, and that's what I find ridiculous. Add to this his comment from the other thread "well cultures are only temporary" wtf???? As if somehow he'd outlive the life-span of an entire cultural mindset?? Uh, no? Maybe a fad, or trend, sure... "grunge" for instance, maybe he'll outlive that, but to outlive, say... post-modern western civilization, lol! insane. Yet he's made the choice to live as if these social "contracts" are invalid because they'll eventually die off or shift.

I think Dre.'s run off somewhere, he hasn't posted in a bit, and the retorts are piling up.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, plus pretty much everything is temporary (I would just say "everything", but I don't want to get into any discussion of whether the universe is temporary or not, lol). The earth is temporary, so why live on it? The sun is temporary, so why utilize its light and heat? Lol.