Critique my arguement on promiscuity and SSA please

[Brain]

I have a friend (Named Kit, hence the funny name of the page)who challenged me to give an arguement that monogamous sexuality (the assumption being that the monogamous are married of course) is what humans are designed for.

Does this work? It is an outline but i dont feel like writing a paper and it works. But it is kinda funky so pleae bear with me.
barney.gonzaga.edu/~bthompson/Second_treatise_on_Kit.htm

 

[uncleauberon]

Well I’ll make a few comments.

You had things well thought out. It seemed a bit wordy - unless your usual debates with this person are similarly structured.

I like this argument this best :​

That does not mean that people are one of that sort of animal.​

You could bring in pop psychology where most of our traditional stories revolve around “boy meets girl” who marry happily ever after.

This traditional sense of human relations resounds in the human heart. It must be more instinctual and deeper than our mere lustings.

---

Also you talked about people ingesting unhealthy food.

You can talk about eating disorders where people swallow spoons and other harmful objects. Because they are compelled to.

Or the simple case of children eating paint-chips and gasoline.

Good Luck

tjp

 

[TOME]

I think the starting point of your discussion should be on human nature itself. What makes a human, human? Are we something essentially different from other animals or are we just a more developed form of animal life. And go from there.

 

[RyanL]

There should be a comma after the word “life” in (a)(ii)I1) sentence one. Also, (b)(i)(1)(ii)(a)(1)(a) should be “stigma” not “stigmata”. Catholic Freudian slip.

I like to argue that each system in the body was made for a purpose, and using the system for another purpose is mis-using the system. The respratory system was made for breathing air, not water. The olfactory system was made for smelling, not for eating. The digestive tract (all of it) was made for digestion, and likewise the reproductive system was made for…wait for it…reproduction. At that point I like to quote the famous atheist Dr. Freud:

“. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Brain]

all good suggestions. Thank you

 

[shirleytowers]

natural drives have a purpose. The drive to eat has for its purpose the nutrition of the body. The drive to sleep has the purose of resting the mind and refreshing the body. The libido has as its purpose reproduction.

if you get hungry and eat gravel, your drive doesn’t acheive its purpose of nutrition, so it is a dysfunction.

If your libido is directed toward anyone or anything with whom you cannot reproduce, it is likewise a dysfunction.

And by the way, animals DO NOT have homosexual sex. That is a dominance behavior that looks like sex but AiNT.

 

[urban-hermit]

I think this is a great idea, and a good way to show the objective necessity of morality.

My biggest criticism of your outline is that, if you are arguing from a Natural Law standpoint, Natural Law deals only with man, not animals. This is a common misunderstanding which you do not want to perpetuate. Natural Law is based on man’s nature, which is a rational nature. I sometimes say “Rational Law” rather than “Natural Law” in informal discussions, because so many people get confused and sidetracked by this term. Only man, uniquely among all animals, has a rational nature. So Natural Law can only truly apply to man.

With that in mind, you might want to eliminate or greatly reduce your discussion of animal behavior. It unnecessarily complicates the debate and causes confusion. While it is true that some animals sometimes copulate with the same sex, it is also true that they do all kinds of things which humans ought not to - from eating their young to eating their own dung. So what you said in 1.a.ii.1 is the only point I think you really need to make: People, because of their rational nature, are not in the same category as animals. If your friend wants to debate that, that is a separate debate.

Also, you might want to deal sequentially with homosexuality and then monogamy. This simplifies the logical process I think. This would allow you to start with a more basic assertion - such as the necessity of human survival - and expand from there. Even somebody who does not accept reality as the Church perceives it might see the logic in this.

Something like – (1)Sex is undeniably, at least in part, for procreation - (2)which necessitates heterosexuality - (3)offspring need parents - (4)the best parents are those secure in a monogamous relationship - (5)feelings of betrayal and insecurity result from unfaithfulness - (6)this effects the parents and the children adversely - … etc.

I wish you well.