L
Libero
Guest
Oh Dr Freud was an avid atheist, he strongly believed that God did not exist…
- Status
R
RyanL
Guest
FINALLY!!!
It’s about time someone approached this in a rational manner! Thank you, Libero!
Libero:
Example #1:
It is a benefit to society to preserve natural habitats for asthetic reasons. It’s also a benefit to society to have a large number of citizens to increase productivity and have an increased number of “happy” people. These are competing interests, as the more people you have the less you are able to preserve natural habitats. So how do you maximize for two variables (i.e., quantity of land preserved for asthetic value and total geographically possible number of persons)? Solve this and you’ll get a Nobel Prize in math, as mathematicians have long held that this is impossible.
Example #2:
It is a benefit to society to have a large number of people. It is also the case the resources are finite. In order to maximize the number of people, each person should be limited to a caloric intake of approximately 1600 calories per day using the most teritorrially conservative food product (I’m not sure what this is…probably soy). It would therefore be optimal to restrict caloric intakes and food choices in order to maximize the number of people we can sustain. Therefore, we should procede to enact protective legislation which restricts caloric intake and diet in order to maximize the total number of people, as that is a benefit to society. We should also limit living space to the minimum possible for survival, etc., etc. Is that what you’re really shooting for?
In practice, the utilitarian justifications simply don’t work. It’s a good thought, but it fails in application.
Is that what you’re arguing? Is that the result you’re shooting for?
God Bless,
RyanL
It’s about time someone approached this in a rational manner! Thank you, Libero!
This is what is typically called a utilitarian justification.
That’s fine - I haven’t put any religious arguments forward.
If you say so, but you’re heading for very sticky territory.
Example #1:
It is a benefit to society to preserve natural habitats for asthetic reasons. It’s also a benefit to society to have a large number of citizens to increase productivity and have an increased number of “happy” people. These are competing interests, as the more people you have the less you are able to preserve natural habitats. So how do you maximize for two variables (i.e., quantity of land preserved for asthetic value and total geographically possible number of persons)? Solve this and you’ll get a Nobel Prize in math, as mathematicians have long held that this is impossible.
Example #2:
It is a benefit to society to have a large number of people. It is also the case the resources are finite. In order to maximize the number of people, each person should be limited to a caloric intake of approximately 1600 calories per day using the most teritorrially conservative food product (I’m not sure what this is…probably soy). It would therefore be optimal to restrict caloric intakes and food choices in order to maximize the number of people we can sustain. Therefore, we should procede to enact protective legislation which restricts caloric intake and diet in order to maximize the total number of people, as that is a benefit to society. We should also limit living space to the minimum possible for survival, etc., etc. Is that what you’re really shooting for?
In practice, the utilitarian justifications simply don’t work. It’s a good thought, but it fails in application.
Exclusively homosexual intercourse cannot procreate, and therefore you are removing the benefit to society of increased members (increased overall productivity both in labor and thought). Therefore, by your logic, exclusively homosexual intercourse should be absolutely banned - a person should only be free to be a bisexual, at most. However, since any homosexual sex removes yet another opportunity for procreation, you are actually doing a societal harm by removing this opportunity. Therefore, homosexual sex should be absolutely banned except for those who are otherwise unable to procreate (impotence, sterility, etc.).
Is that what you’re arguing? Is that the result you’re shooting for?
God Bless,
RyanL
R
RyanL
Guest
And still he thought that self-centered pleasure seeking through sexual stimulation divorced from the possibility of procreation was a disordered condition…I wonder how he came to that conclusion if he was an atheist…
God Bless,
RyanL
B
Beaver
Guest
I find it opposes marriage. It say God does not know me, something I do **not **beleive to be true. It say God made an error, I do not believe this either. Why is homosexuality around, because we have the wrong concept of marriage, we believe marriage is the love between of man and a woman. I debate this in the posting: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104826
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Irrelevent to whether his argument here is right or wrong. As we say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Ryan is right to ask about this because it demolishes the contention that the wrongness of homosexuality is just an arbitrary product of Catholicism.
Scott
L
Libero
Guest
Yes, but he was also still human…And still he thought that self-centered pleasure seeking through sexual stimulation divorced from the possibility of procreation was a disordered condition…I wonder how he came to that conclusion if he was an atheist…
God Bless,
RyanL
He may have been intelligent, but he was not infallible.
He is also only one man, who contributed to psychological thought along time ago - science evolves - would you not even entertain the possibility that he was wrong?
It was easy to simply claim homosexuality was wrong back then, as nobody wished to say otherwise… not our religions… not our politics… not our scientists…
He could be wrong - gasp awkward silence…
R
RyanL
Guest
Certainly he could be wrong - he was wrong about the existance of God, for example.He could be wrong - gasp awkward silence…
But it would be the height of foolishness to dismiss him simply because he’s no longer alive - it would be like rejecting heliocentric theory simply because Copernicus lived long ago. Better first to see whether or not he was right – a question you have barely approached thus far.
God Bless,
RyanL
L
Libero
Guest
You’re welcome
Given the small number of homosexuals, the fact that they do not reproduce has no significant effect on the population, and given the warnings from many about over population of earth, we can dismiss concerns to some point. Given also, that in todays world, most homosexuals who do not even accept their orientation would probably not go on to have children either, this argument belongs more so in the “save the tribe” times.
Given that we have moved on substantially now, particularly with the introduction of artificial fertilisers, we are capable of tackling problems such as food shortage with different techniques.
Oh I agree about that Prof. Dr. Kung’s Global Ethic is a brilliant idea - but unfortunately it just isn’t working in practice…
Given that in removing homosexual intercourse, society does not benefit either, it does not necessarilly make sense, in fact in preventing homosexual relationships, we could encounter negative effects. These two homosexuals that have been prevented from being in a relationship are not only not going to add to the population with children, but they are also now taking up double the living space - and they are also less happy, so may not be doing their job as well as possible etc.
I suppose it is a two way street - there are both benefits and negatives from each choice
L
Libero
Guest
I agree, but I am of limited use in a discussion about psychology - not really my forte
D
Digger71
Guest
Scott Waddell:
I thought context of the quote was clear.
Notice, from the diatribe posted that NOTHING was said of love, affection, committment of the social good these bring.
What I said:
Another aspect is the common assertion that homosex is all aabout lust and lower feelings. It is directly equated with animal instinct, and some people feel it is evidence of the devolution of a moral being. If you would ‘do’ Patrick you would ‘do’ Rex
what RyanL said:
Have I ever claimed any of that? I am completely convinced that many homosexual couples sincerely love each other and are trying to express that love through their sexual acts.
It was demonstrating the veracity of a previous post, specifically equating homosexuality with animal behaviours, such as eating excrement. It was also demonstrating the link between disgust and (some peoples) morality.
I thought context of the quote was clear.
Notice, from the diatribe posted that NOTHING was said of love, affection, committment of the social good these bring.
What I said:
Another aspect is the common assertion that homosex is all aabout lust and lower feelings. It is directly equated with animal instinct, and some people feel it is evidence of the devolution of a moral being. If you would ‘do’ Patrick you would ‘do’ Rex
what RyanL said:
Have I ever claimed any of that? I am completely convinced that many homosexual couples sincerely love each other and are trying to express that love through their sexual acts.
W
wabrams
Guest
This has got to be the most drawn out way I’ve ever seen to basically say I refuse to believe your statement.
I know you used the same explaination in another posts and said you’re a writer and you are careful about the meaning of words, yada yada yada; but I’m a pretty creative writer myself. Many a term paper I wrote went around in circles or tried to water down the subject b/c I didn’t know the material or didn’t want to believe the subject of the paper. In other words, don’t b.s. a b.s.'er.
C
contemplative
Guest
**
When I think of homosexuality I get the hebegeebees…that is as far as I go…I can’t get past the queasiness, quivers and goosebumps…
Nope :nope: I don’t need a psychologist or church doctrine to explain my perfectly normal and healthy reactions.
**
When I think of homosexuality I get the hebegeebees…that is as far as I go…I can’t get past the queasiness, quivers and goosebumps…
Nope :nope: I don’t need a psychologist or church doctrine to explain my perfectly normal and healthy reactions.
B
buffalo
Guest
That’s because the natural law is written into your heart.
D
Digger71
Guest
Untrammled population growth is not good for a society. If demands exceed resources there is starvation and deprivation. It must be balanced, and this happens naturally in some cases (famine, drought, disease). This is an obvious thruth, we cannot eat air, we cannot drink dirt. We can develop technological means to balance this, and charity and aid mitigate the greatest imbalances in some places. but purpetual growth without these leads to ruin and population crash.
The social good of permanent committed relationships goes well beyond babies. Your focus on it is a reductionist view. Yes, yes, I know the insistance: unitive and procreation, never either. But as I have said before, that is is like a thirsty man refusing half a glass of water because it isnt full.
Actually, it’s much worse than that. It is like refusing to give a thirsty man water from the well because he cant drink all of the water from the well.
L
Libero
Guest
Wow - perhaps I should see a psychologist, or maybe an exorcist for not having this normal reaction that is a consequence of “natural law” ?That’s because the natural law is written into your heart.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perhaps! Do you feel possessed?
Given enough time the constant barrage of ideas and images can suppress the reading of the natural law. The mind in its pride can override the humility of heart.
W
wabrams
Guest
This planet can easily support several millions of new people, possibly billions; so population control isn’t a viable arguement. Did you know that most of the world’s population could have something like a 700 sq ft home and almost all of them would fit in the state of Texas?
No, it’s like refusing to give a thirsty man water from the well because the well in contaminated.
H
HappyCatholic01
Guest
134 posts on something where opinions have no merit. I don’t recall the Vatican polling me before revising the Catechism.
Nice food for thought perhaps, but in terms of theology and doctrine, our opinions have no merit whatsoever.
Nice food for thought perhaps, but in terms of theology and doctrine, our opinions have no merit whatsoever.
D
Digger71
Guest
That was not the argument I put forward. I localised it, and specified various fixes, but pointed out people still died.
The argument presented is that homosex is immoral for something it LACKS (well= love + babies),. You have changed the argument by saying the well is poisoned.
R
RyanL
Guest
You’ve raised several issues in objection to an application of your utilitarian justification, so I’m going to try and synthesize - please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you.
1. There aren’t a lot of homosexuals, so they won’t contribute significantly to population growth. Therefore, they’re irrelevant in the population growth discussion.
Response #1: According to the numbers I typically see promoted, some 10% of any given population is homosexual. That is a statistically significant number, which can produce a statistically significant number of offspring, and therefore your argument fails (because it is false) by your own criteria.
Response #2: A single mind can positively affect an entire society (and indeed all human history), and this has been repeatedly demonstrated. You are denying the opportunity to obtain like minds, and thus you are harming society with your permissiveness. Therefore, your argument fails by your own criteria.
**
2. Population growth is a problem, and we shouldn’t contribute to it by having more people. **(This is actually an alternative argument, premised on your objection (1) being false - I like that style of thinking; keep it up!
)
Response #1: As wabrams said, population growth can be supported for a long time in the future. By bringing more people into the equation sooner, you are more likely to have good ideas which positively influence society early on, and therefore have a more significant impact. You are denying this societal good, and therefore your argument fails by your own criteria.
Response #2: Extensive population growth can be more adequately supported by limiting the amount of resources depleted. Because of this, we should minimize our caloric intakes to maximize (1) the amount of space available by livestock/crop growth and (2) depletion of natural nutrients in the soil. We can do this effectively by limiting our caloric requirements to the bare minimum. By ceasing all unnecessary exercise (including homosexual sex), we can more effectively conserve our resources and draw upon them later to support extensive population growth. Homosexuality should therefore be unequivocally banned. Using this logic, your argument fails by your own criteria.
3. The social goods which result from permanent committed relationships goes well beyond population growth. These goods outweigh the harms of unlimited population growth.
Response #1: Same as response 2.1.
Response #2: You are making an unsupported judgment call that the goods resultant from committed relationships are better than the goods resultant from an increased labor pool, gene pool, and intellectual thought pool. Because you have not supported your assertion, your argument remains impotent.
Response #3: Once you start to try and “balance” these competing goods, you’re engaging in an attempt to maximize for two variables. Once again, this is mathematically impossible. Therefore, your argument fails.
**4. Most homosexuals would probably not go on to have children.
**Response #1: This is speculation without substantiation. This cannot serve to prove a utilitarian justification.
Response #2: Sure they would. Therefore, your argument fails.
Since all of these arguments fail, homosexual sex should only be had by those who are naturally sterile or impotent. Including the argument for conservation of caloric intake, however, the utilitarian justification theory demands that all homosexual sex be banned. Are you sure you’re on the “pro-” side here? You seem to have done a good job of making the argument against…
Now, what did I miss?
God Bless,
RyanL
1. There aren’t a lot of homosexuals, so they won’t contribute significantly to population growth. Therefore, they’re irrelevant in the population growth discussion.
Response #1: According to the numbers I typically see promoted, some 10% of any given population is homosexual. That is a statistically significant number, which can produce a statistically significant number of offspring, and therefore your argument fails (because it is false) by your own criteria.
Response #2: A single mind can positively affect an entire society (and indeed all human history), and this has been repeatedly demonstrated. You are denying the opportunity to obtain like minds, and thus you are harming society with your permissiveness. Therefore, your argument fails by your own criteria.
**
2. Population growth is a problem, and we shouldn’t contribute to it by having more people. **(This is actually an alternative argument, premised on your objection (1) being false - I like that style of thinking; keep it up!
)Response #1: As wabrams said, population growth can be supported for a long time in the future. By bringing more people into the equation sooner, you are more likely to have good ideas which positively influence society early on, and therefore have a more significant impact. You are denying this societal good, and therefore your argument fails by your own criteria.
Response #2: Extensive population growth can be more adequately supported by limiting the amount of resources depleted. Because of this, we should minimize our caloric intakes to maximize (1) the amount of space available by livestock/crop growth and (2) depletion of natural nutrients in the soil. We can do this effectively by limiting our caloric requirements to the bare minimum. By ceasing all unnecessary exercise (including homosexual sex), we can more effectively conserve our resources and draw upon them later to support extensive population growth. Homosexuality should therefore be unequivocally banned. Using this logic, your argument fails by your own criteria.
3. The social goods which result from permanent committed relationships goes well beyond population growth. These goods outweigh the harms of unlimited population growth.
Response #1: Same as response 2.1.
Response #2: You are making an unsupported judgment call that the goods resultant from committed relationships are better than the goods resultant from an increased labor pool, gene pool, and intellectual thought pool. Because you have not supported your assertion, your argument remains impotent.
Response #3: Once you start to try and “balance” these competing goods, you’re engaging in an attempt to maximize for two variables. Once again, this is mathematically impossible. Therefore, your argument fails.
**4. Most homosexuals would probably not go on to have children.
**Response #1: This is speculation without substantiation. This cannot serve to prove a utilitarian justification.
Response #2: Sure they would. Therefore, your argument fails.
Since all of these arguments fail, homosexual sex should only be had by those who are naturally sterile or impotent. Including the argument for conservation of caloric intake, however, the utilitarian justification theory demands that all homosexual sex be banned. Are you sure you’re on the “pro-” side here? You seem to have done a good job of making the argument against…
Now, what did I miss?
God Bless,
RyanL
- Status