 |
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
Scenario: a gay male couple and a woman (a total of THREE people) are on an island at the same time. Suddenly everyone else in the world disappears, leaving only the three island-goers.
Question - if you are one of the gay guys, and you are really attracted to your gay partner, and don't really like or feel anything for the girl, what do you do?
A - Stay true and gay, and only "date", WINK WINK, your male friend, and sexually avoid the female,
--OR--
B - Have "relations" WINK WINK with the female, even though you don't want to, in the interests of preserving the species.
The dilemma here for homosexuals and their activists is this -
If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act a la the guy who killed Harrison Ford's wife in The Fugitive. In a more theoretical sense, you are discouraging a culture of life and reducing the evolutionary potential of the species significantly.
If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance.
Yahtzee! I think my analysis holds water. |
Your "analysis" was something you pulled out of your ass.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
I love it how no one sticks to the analysis, and I am over here like butter to its bread - INSEPARABLE
Urban Ranger, No I am not a homosexual because that girl was indeed like toast in a toaster - SHORT-TERM and NOT MY TYPE and NOT THAT HOT. I plan to have kids later, or at least am as open to it as possible. Gay people are not, making me not gay, therefore maybe you should check your facts.
Asher - I am not an Apple "advocate," I am an Apple " consumer," Apple is not oppressed or violated, it is a thriving corporate entity, all you need to check your facts.
Anyone care to explain to me how homosexuality can exist if , as proven in initial analysis , it is a luxury like caviar?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
Wiglaf, your arguements are based on convictions that easily produce their own counter arguements. Let's for a second jump on your train of thought and see where it takes us.
If I'm not mistaken, your primary reason here is to express your dislike of man-to-man sexual relationships. You go further from this act of expression into trying to prove it to everyone else that your dislike is logical and therefore must be followed by everybody else, including homosexual males. To prove the universal applicability of a dislike is arguementatively a non-starter.
You try to give substance to this approach by arguing that heterosexual sex must be the only norm of sex because it has biological function. But sex is not only functional, it's also a way of expressing love (or even affection), among other things. So your emphasis on function has an implication that sex must not be done for pleasure. On the other hand, if you would concede sex can be for pleasure, and as such acceptable between hetero couples, how would you defend against a gay saying he does it for pleasure, without recourse to function?
You try to reinforce your (essentially) functional point by pointing out the absurdity of having sex with a toaster (toaster=luxury, having sex with toaster=no babies, having sex with another male=no babies, ergo having sex with another male=luxury). You thereby weaken your own arguement, because then it gives your rhetorical opponents the opportunity to point it out to you that your approach is not deductive, but inductive (it's like in the misassumption: cats are animals, dogs are animals, hence cats are dogs  ).
From there, you expose your whole arguement to fresh direct fire by saying that there must be "homosexual pride infatuations" or "homosexual attractions" instead of love, all the while conceding the theoretical possibility that homosexuality might be the result of a deviant gene. If it is the result of such a gene, then for the possessors of that gene the love they feel for another male would be true enough (since they are genetically dispossessed to "love" another male).
There's more to it. You're entitled to your dislike of male-male sex. But the way you put it is in a way to convince gays that they are wrong and in a way their whole life is a fallacy. Even if we assume (for the sake of arguement) that homosexuality is a 'deviation', it's unreasonable to expect that the gays of the world would suddenly say "yeah, wow I didn't see it like this, so I repent".
Also, would it be true if one assumes that you probably base your dislike and your arguement on religious teachings? You are again entitled to accept homosexual relationships as sinful, if you choose to. But it would be wrong to assume everybody shares your religious conviction, however from the heart it is to you.
Therefore, in a nutshell, you need a whole better case than to try prove homosexuality is despicable, because 'despicable' is subjective, and it's unrealistic expecting gays to say their lives are a deviation. They won't do that 
On a lighter note, what about lesbians? Well I can't think of a straight guy who would not be turned on by two kissing chicks  And is there a straight guy who doesn't imagine being in the same bed with two bisexual girls?
Kissing chicks 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
On the other hand, if you would concede sex can be for pleasure, |
I don't care why people, you know, DATE, WINK WINK, but I do care that their DATING WINK WINK has some ultimate biological function or implication. Gay stuff NUDGE NUDGE has none of this.
Argument is not spelled "Arguement."
And if homosexuals have a deviant gene, they must be dealt with like all diseased people. Quarantined, sued, given tax deductions, arrested, etc. The rule of law must be upheld.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
I don't care why people, you know, DATE, WINK WINK, but I do care that their DATING WINK WINK has some ultimate biological function or implication. Gay stuff NUDGE NUDGE has none of this. |
What's the reason for this worshipping of some "ultimate biological function"?
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
And if homosexuals have a deviant gene, they must be dealt with like all diseased people. Quarantined, sued, given tax deductions, arrested, etc. The rule of law must be upheld. |
Rule of law? Which law is saying that diseased people "must be quarantined, sued, given tax deductions, arrested, etc."?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
If you pick A, you are terminating the species through your homosexuality, a clearly immoral and illegal act... |
1. I don't know of any laws that make fathering children mandatory.
2. It's not clear that it's immoral. Some people think that we only have obligations to presently existing persons or those future persons whose existence we are responsible, or future persons who are likely to come into existence independently of our actions.
If you deny these limited forms of responsibility for future generations, you end up with bizarre situations in which people have to spend all their time having children because the more people exist in the future, the more overall happiness there can be (subject to empirical constraints of course, but it is reasonably clear that utilitarian considerations with respect to future people would require massively increased fecundity).
quote:
In a more theoretical sense, you are discouraging a culture of life and reducing the evolutionary potential of the species significantly. |
3. I don't understand what the first really means, or that the second has any ethical import at all.
4. Even if you pick A, it does not mean that you have to stop being a homosexual. Many gay men father children without turning themselves into straights. Presumably, the desire to father children can overcome one's ordinary sexual proclivities (the flip side is those straight men who have found themselves inadvertently aroused during homosexual assaults - a very taboo subject). So it's a false dilemma.
quote:
If you pick B, you are essentially arguing that homosexuality is a sexual luxury and not a biological requirement, in essence reducing the practice to deviance. |
5. I don't understand what "deviance" means here. How can you prove that homosexuality is not an evolutionary adaptation to deal with overcrowding, yet keep those evolutionary benefits that societies with stable pair bonds or enjoy?
And I don't think that a normal sex life is a luxury.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Ah, so you meant forceful to mean coerced.
|
No, I mean imposed. To be existentialist about it, the decision is not made by the free will of the beholder, but the free will of the killer, or then kills that person against their will; forcing themself upon them etc etc. We can deduce then that the responsibility for that murder is the killers, not the bullet since the latter clearly has no free will.
quote:
1) yes, that's the point
|
The point is that the definition of murder is XYZ and it is a fallacy to say XYZ = bad, we have only established a definition of murder which can *then* be debated.
quote:
2) when did you stop being a relativist?
|
I didn't. Going on from my definition I would say that all forceful imposition of one relative upon another (person upon person) is fallacious in the human context. Suppose we are debating it, my "murder is fallacious in given context" against you "murder isn't necessarily wrong" * then in that context, the one of the debate, they are equally valid.
*I don't know that that is your opinion I'm making assumptions that you'd take a utilitarian route.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2004 09:14
|