09-13-2012, 10:00 PM | #126 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
No, I brought animals into the conversation to show that it's just nature in general, not human nature.
And how the hell can homosexuality be philosophical? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps I should ask my friend with a bachelor's in Philosophy? |
09-13-2012, 10:04 PM | #127 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
Or you could trust me because I also have a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy?
I'm talking specifically about humans. Animals are reactionary creatures that are driven completely by instinct (at least as far as I know). I'm not sure how many times I can explain this without just c+ping my previous response. Human nature is concerned with what man is and should be. That means it is concerned with man's actions. Virtue, vice, etc.: ethics. That means that homosexuality, as an action, can be judged from an ethical standpoint, just as heterosexuality and asexuality or any other thing a man can do can be judged. |
09-13-2012, 10:31 PM | #128 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
I uh... uh...
|
09-13-2012, 10:46 PM | #129 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
So are you saying that actions cannot be judged from an ethical standpoint?
|
09-13-2012, 10:56 PM | #130 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
No, I'm saying I don't understand this subject well enough to continue discussing it, much less with a philosophy major.
abandonthread.gif
__________________
|
09-13-2012, 11:49 PM | #131 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
DOHOHOHOHO.
On the philosophical side, let's look at homosexuality from a utilitarian point of view- greatest good for the greatest number of people. So let's do some math! Studies estimate that between 4-10% of the population are homosexual, so we'll use the median of 7% for our purposes. So say 7% of the population enjoys actively participating in homosexual acts, and that is a great good for them. Since they are generally performing said acts on others in that same percentage (or kinky experimenters), we'll say that by itself it is an act that does not impede the other percentage of the population from enjoying their own happiness, and is thus a net good for the world. However, if a person in the 93% is attracted to a member of the 7% homosexual population the straight person would be unable to enjoy sexual activities with them isn't permitting homosexual acts decreasing the happiness of the 93%? Perhaps, but keep in mind that greatest good for all is in play here. If the straight person would enjoy having sex with the homosexual person, but the homosexual person would actively dislike having sex with the straight person we should likely consider it a wash- by keeping the two groups separate and engaging in sexual relations with those that they would both enjoy sexual relationships it results in a greater good for the world. What about procreation, though? A homosexual couple is not able to produce offspring, and thus robs the world of the goods in life that those theoretical children could have enjoyed! An interesting argument, but one that is not without rebuttals. First of all, forcing people who don't wish to have children to have children would be a large drain on their happiness, and children raised by couples who don't want to have children are generally less happy in their lives as a result. Additionally, we're to a point technologically where just because a couple happens to be of the same sex it does not preclude them from procreating or adopting and raising a child- some might argue that you are doing the child an evil by giving it two parents of the same sex (and thus perhaps lacking a role model of the opposite sex), but that concern is at least neutralized by the argument that the good from having parents who care about you is better than having no parents- and the fact that the homosexual couple who would have volunteered to raise the child would be doing it because they want to means that it would be good for them, and thus just. Additionally, some people in the 93% (men) derive great enjoyment from watching two homosexuals engage in sexual activities. This would thereby not only be a good for the people who are engaging in the act, but people who may desire to watch it as well- another bonus for the good of the world! There are additional arguments for homosexuality being a good for the world, but there is (at least) one counterpoint to my argument- the fact that homosexual people are happy and engaging in sexual acts makes unownmew so deeply unhappy that it cancels out all of the net gain of happiness for the rest of the world, even though no one is forcing him to engage in homosexual acts himself. Dang, I really thought we had something there. I guess homosexuality is philosophically immoral.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
09-13-2012, 11:55 PM | #132 |
Not sure if gone...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Or just lurking.
Posts: 2,709
|
If only utilitarianism was a good thing =p
|
09-13-2012, 11:59 PM | #133 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
Utilitarianism isn't just a good thing, it's the greatest number of good things!
*shot*
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
09-14-2012, 05:06 AM | #134 | ||||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 09-14-2012 at 05:15 AM. |
||||
09-14-2012, 07:11 AM | #135 | |||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, if nature intended human children to be raised by same-sex parents, why would nature not have granted same-sex parents the ability to procreate? But instead we have males and females, and only between the two genders can children be born. This is very strong evidence that, nature intended parents to be male and female, not male and male, or female and female. Quote:
But of course, that's a debate for an evolution thread, not here. Quote:
We're the best there is. Quote:
By your logic, one would have to wonder why humanity is so terrible at everything it does, from keeping social order, to establishing dominance, to survival of the fittest (or lack thereof). The answer of course, is the same in every case: Higher Reasoning, Sentience, Knowledge of right and wrong. |
|||||
09-14-2012, 07:35 AM | #136 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
I don't understand. You're simultaneously saying that "nature intended so-and-so" and then you're saying "Humanity is different because blah blah blah." Which one do you mean? If you're trying to somehow justify both at the same time, then how?
__________________
Spoiler: show |
09-14-2012, 07:49 AM | #137 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
I'm assuming that everyone here is aware that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom?
|
09-14-2012, 09:26 AM | #138 | |
「Killer Queen No Prog」
|
Quote:
|
|
09-14-2012, 09:12 PM | #139 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
And yes, if you like, you can substitute "nature" with "God," as it's essentially the same thing, a higher power that created us as we are, however it was that we were created, and not as something else. Quote:
See, with the law sanctioning marriage as "just about sex for pleasure," the family starts to fall apart. As the family falls apart, children are raised with less and less of a moral compass to fall back on. With less of a moral direction to guide people, citizens, over the generations, become wilder and wilder, preoccupied only with their own gratification (sex for pleasure) than anything "good," or wholesome. And this is when society starts to fall apart and become no better than Sodom and Gomorrah. It oppresses others for it's gratification, and in turn is oppressed by those stronger than it, to it's own destruction. As the family, so too goes the nation. |
||
09-14-2012, 09:26 PM | #140 | ||
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
And don't bring up religion. Any serious gay marriage discussion should not have to do with the ideologies of a man from the 1st century. Quote:
This entire paragraph says nothing on how gay marriage is any worse than marriage between a man and a wife.
__________________
|
||
09-15-2012, 01:30 PM | #141 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course a traditional marriage can damage kids if the parents are bad, so the same goes for a same-sex marriage, and a single parent household, but strictly speaking, a perfect heterosexual marriage is the better environment for raising children then a perfect same-sex marriage. You know what I'm saying is undebateable, and that is exactly why you're trying to invalidate my point by using unbalanced comparisons. Marriage is for raising families. If people just desire sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual, they can have civil unions, or prostitutes. Leave marriage out of it. People having sex before marriage is wrong anyway, but of course, society has already degraded that far, but there's no reason to let it degrade further. You can't use the current state of the perversion of marriage to suit your arguments, because it's already corrupted past what it's meant for. Last edited by unownmew; 09-15-2012 at 02:05 PM. |
|||
09-15-2012, 01:33 PM | #142 |
「Killer Queen No Prog」
|
UM, you do realise that homosexuals can also get married out of love and not just for sex, correct?
|
09-15-2012, 01:59 PM | #143 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Precisely why is it better for a child to have one male and one female role model?
|
09-15-2012, 02:28 PM | #144 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
A father can not mother a child, and a mother can not father a child. There is a reason women have always tended towards feminine qualities and males tend towards masculine qualities. The brain is wired differently. There are things a man can not do, and things a female can not do, and when you have two parents of the same gender, you rob the child of those other things. |
||
09-15-2012, 09:28 PM | #146 |
Silver LO
|
However, unownmew, in this day and age especially, we're more enlightened to how sexist gender roles are towards both sexes, and slowly but surely breaking out of that mould. I know it's directly opposed to your views, but women can be so much more than babymakers, and can actually be the major breadwinner of a family. Men can actually be very good nurturers, as well.
And I dare you to look me in the eye and tell me that I wouldn't have been better raised by a gay couple who really wanted children (and thus would strive to be better parents), than the family I grew up in, with a selfish abuse bastard as a father. |
09-16-2012, 05:21 AM | #147 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah, no. UM, you are confusing sex with gender. Sex is the fact that males have a penis and females have a uterus. Gender is the non biological side of it. There is no biological reason that a woman cannot be President of the united states, but culturally, it would be a big step forward if you guys elected one. This is gender politixs, not sex.
There is no reason why having two different sexes for parents is good for a child. Most of the 'wiring differently' of which you speak is human construction, not nature's intent. It is entirely plausible for two men in a relationship to consist of the manly guy and tr effeminate guy. But even given that, to assume that both are necessary and that both must come from the parents is fairly dumb. Sex has little to do with it. |
09-16-2012, 07:43 AM | #148 |
Silver LO
|
As well, if I remember right, you believe in a strong extended family unit. So even if they did need a female influence as well, wouldn't having my sister (and at times her husband and their third, another woman) come over at times, maybe babysit occasionally, and be fairly involved in their lives satisfy the need for that female influence? It seems to be that quite a few gay men have sisters, probably around the same percentage of straight men with sisters. Can't their aunties be the female role model (making the huge assumption one is even needed during development)? And after they start schools, they are sure to have at least one female teacher, and hopefully at least one who truly cares about the children learning.
Before you start to rant about how that kind of role model doesn't work, let me tell you this. My high school Ag teacher, Mr. Freeman, was more of a father figure in the four and a half years he was my mentor (summer ag project prior to 9th, pig for fair), than my father figure ever was throughout my entire life, and had a definite role in shaping me into the man I am. Not saying I emulated him, of course, he's a heterosexual libertarian who, like you, doesn't agree with homosexuality, but he did help shape some of my tolerance and gave me a certain amount of discipline. He joked a lot about my orientation, but it was always clear that it was because he actually cared about me, and really didn't judge (we got into a few informal debates, too, on all kinds of subjects. Good times). What I'm saying here is that the nuclear family structure is overrated, and I feel that it can really open up a huge window for the father to be abusive in his power, because nobody has the power to check him. Maybe I'm a bit cynical there, but psychological scars don't heal easy, or sometimes, at all. Anyway, rambling, so |
09-16-2012, 08:56 AM | #149 | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Whenever someone says "in this day and age, we're more enlightened than our primitive ancestors of the past," you can be sure, that is exactly what our ancestors said way back then, about the exact same social questions we're discussing now. Having gender roles is sexist? On the contrary, it's very natural. Women are mothers, men are fathers, and neither one can fulfill to the fullest, the role of their opposite. They can do sufficiently when one is lacking, but never completely. Our ancestors knew better than we, and yet we foolishly assume that since we've advanced so greatly technologically, we are so much more enlightened, while they were nothing more than savage primitives. Explain to me the meaning of Yin and Yang. Quote:
See how unbalancing the parameters makes the answer automatically conform with the asker's views? Now stop, and lets start talking about equal comparisons. Can you honestly tell me that a perfect homosexual marriage would be exactly equal to a heterosexual marriage, in how children are raised? Can the perfect love of an adopted child rival an equally perfect love from genetic parents? Can a perfect love of someone who has taken part in birthing children, rival the perfect love of someone who has never taken part in birthing children? Quote:
If I were to state it, I would say, a "mother's influence" which is far different than a sister's influence, or an aunt's influence, though they can be similar, they can never be equal. Furthermore, education of a child is primarily the responsibility of the parents, not something that should be farmed out to the government. State Education is a good supplemental learning, but real education should be done by the parents (and if not, they are not doing their duty as a parent) Quote:
Make divorce far more difficult and far less prevalent. Develop a social stigma against extramarital and premarital affairs, particularly between teenagers. Codify adultery and penalize it. Prohibit abortion, and penalize it. Enforce marriage of a pregnant mother and the biological father. Enforce abuse laws already on the books. Subsidize Marital Counseling. And I guarantee society will start looking far cleaner, and there will be fewer sad stories of abusive families. Another possibility is legalizing polygyny, particularly in the case of widows, divorcees, and abandoned mothers. |
||||
09-16-2012, 10:13 AM | #150 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
There's nothing in the brain that makes gender roles sex appropriate I'm afraid. You're factually wrong on this one mate
You're also bigoted, but I'm going to chalk that down to a narrow world view rather than being a wanker. |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|