What do you think of homosexuality?

[wabrams]

Digger71:

That was not the argument I put forward. I localised it, and specified various fixes, but pointed out people still died.

Yeah, ok.

Digger71:

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.

I haven’t changed the arguement, the well is poisened: emotional disorder goes untreated, further destruction on family values, etc etc.

 

[Digger71]

wabrams:

I haven’t changed the arguement, the well is poisened: emotional disorder goes untreated, further destruction on family values, etc etc.

bits…

1. 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)
2. The social good of permanent committed relationships goes well beyond babies. Your focus on it is a reductionist view.

unitive + procreation.

the rest is a non-sequiter, family valuesa re not damaged by gay-rights but by exclusion and intolerance that show the main culture uo in a bad light and create resistance.

Remember, the gay lib movement was started by police raids on stonewalls, and they are winning hands down all the arguments.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Urf:

You listen, but you dont hear. That’s all.

No I think you refuse to hear & listen. Did you read post#50, if so can you respond to his questions and position.

I don’t believe you can and that is why you respond with the above insults instead.

Moral justification cannot be made for homosexual relations (acts) As a Christian who believes in the Word of God you can not get around this without interjecting your own opinions of what morality should be!

Peace!

 

[buffalo]

Digger71:

bits…

1. 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)
2. The social good of permanent committed relationships goes well beyond babies. Your focus on it is a reductionist view.

unitive + procreation.

the rest is a non-sequiter, family valuesa re not damaged by gay-rights but by exclusion and intolerance that show the main culture uo in a bad light and create resistance.

Remember, the gay lib movement was started by police raids on stonewalls, and they are winning hands down all the arguments.

The order of events in the downfall of civilizations:

1. Sterilize the sex act
2. Kill the unborn
3. Embrace homosexuality

 

[wabrams]

Digger71:

bits…

1. 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)
2. The social good of permanent committed relationships goes well beyond babies. Your focus on it is a reductionist view.

unitive + procreation.

the rest is a non-sequiter, family valuesa re not damaged by gay-rights but by exclusion and intolerance that show the main culture uo in a bad light and create resistance.

Oh yeah right, family values would be better if we let homosexuals marry. How do you figure that?

Digger71:

Remember, the gay lib movement was started by police raids on stonewalls, and they are winning hands down all the arguments.

Proof?

 

[RyanL]

Oh, and one more thing…

Libero:

Oh I agree about that Prof. Dr. Kung’s Global Ethic is a brilliant idea…

Kung’s “ethics” are quite silly because it’s simply another form of relativism, only this form attempts (somewhat) to include subjectivism. In any case, it completely denies the objective nature of the act as an end unto itself. Kung would have us with our collective nose to the tail of the zeitgeist, and that’s a sure-fire formula for anarchy.

It’s simply bad moral reasoning, so please don’t imply that I would agree with it by agreeing in agreement with him and without my agreement but as if I actually agreed…unless, of course, I agree to agree beforehand. Agreed?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[JSmitty2005]

Libero:

Oh I agree about that Prof. Dr. Kung’s Global Ethic is a brilliant idea - but unfortunately it just isn’t working in practice…

Dr…Kung…brilliant?!

 

[Digger71]

RyanL:

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.

My sources always put it at the 2-5%, I alwys say 2%.

In anycase, if your preferred figure is true (10%) we can see that the follow-up claims that this is ‘significant’ is not true as population growth worldwide remains fairly high.

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.

---

a ‘what if a genius was born’ scenario. OK. what if that extra person was another pol-pot, hitler, or stalin?

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.

Or…create environmentalists to decide to weaponise ebola and kill 90% of people. Or create extra mutational possibilities for extant viruses.

In anycase, without perfect distribution of resources we are failing to look after even the people we have.

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 By ceasing all unnecessary exercise (including homosexual sex),

low calorie cultures are possible.

[quotw]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.

Same response

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.

You assertions about labourforce, good distribution, and ‘what is’ scenarios are double edged swords. By your own arguments, your arguments stand 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.

Balance does not mean maximize. And does not mean ‘attempt to maximise two variable’ balance means, in this case, to act responsibly.

Since all of these arguments fail, homosexual sex should only be had by those who are naturally sterile or impotent.

With so many logical flaws…

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

My sources always put it at the 2-5%, I alwys say 2%.

That’s still statistically significant, mathematically speaking.

In anycase, if your preferred figure is true (10%) we can see that the follow-up claims that this is ‘significant’ is not true as population growth worldwide remains fairly high.

Population is going up, therefore 10% cannot be homosexuals? That’s a logical non-sequitor. You’ll have to do better than that.

a ‘what if a genius was born’ scenario. OK. what if that extra person was another pol-pot, hitler, or stalin?

There are three choices available:

1. Maximize population increase, and accept the “bad eggs” with the “good”
2. Limit population increase (possibly through eugenics - a very utilitarian thing, BTW), and you still get the “bad eggs” with the “good”, only less of each.
3. Minimize population increase (-100% being optimal). Everyone dies and there are no more Hitlers or Einsteins.

What is your selection, and which variables are you maximizing?

low calorie cultures are possible.

Yup - and the best would be the most slothful with the least caloric intake, just like I stated. Your point?

Same response

Again - your point?

You assertions about labourforce, good distribution, and ‘what is’ scenarios are double edged swords. By your own arguments, your arguments stand impotent.

You have not demonstrated this to be the case.

Balance does not mean maximize. And does not mean ‘attempt to maximise two variable’ balance means, in this case, to act responsibly.

Ahh…so you’re not going to maximize the goods? How very un-utilitarian of you…

With so many logical flaws…

Um…back at ya’?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

a ‘what if a genius was born’ scenario. OK. what if that extra person was another pol-pot, hitler, or stalin?

Oh, and one more thing - I believe Hitler was a pretty good utilitarian…the Holocaust had *many *notably utilitarian justifications!

Good role models, though. It’s interesting to note the value of a particular ideology by looking at the people who live it most fully. I would lay claim to Mother Theresa for mine, but if you want Hitler that’s really your decision.

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
FYI, we’ve now reached Godwin’s Law, and since you mentioned Hitler first, you lose. Them’s the rules. Just kidding.