Thread: A "fix" for homosexuality

Moral standards are not dependent on statistics.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

That one is. You're the one that talked about "in universal application." This is completely dependent on homosexuality BEING in universal application, and it's not.

Show us how it's wrong when it's NOT in "universal application,"

I was asked to demonstrate how acts of homosexuality are wrong. I did, using the universal application standard of this life and death matter. I am NOT going to justify it to your liking. Deal with it. I justified it. You have failed to demonstrate what moral standard acts of homosexuality meet that cannot be met with heterosexual acts.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I was asked to demonstrate how acts of homosexuality are wrong. I did, using the universal application standard of this life and death matter. I am NOT going to justify it to your liking. Deal with it. I justified it.

Still logically-challenged, I see. :tongue:

It's not that you have failed to justify your position "to my liking," it's that you have failed to justify it in any manner that makes any logical sense. Your justification consists of nothing but special pleading, spurious excuses, and ridiculous logic-chopping that nobody who isn't desperately trying to believe that homosexuality is wrong would credit for a split-second. It's not just me that would reject your argument. It's anyone with a brain that works.

Once more: your argument was that homosexuality is wrong because, "in universal application" -- that is, if everyone was gay -- it would result in the extermination of the human species, because nobody would have children.

What's wrong with this argument? Two things:

1) What you have presented is not an argument that homosexuality is wrong, but an argument that homosexuality WOULD BE wrong IF everyone was gay. Since everyone is NOT gay, it follows from this that homosexuality is NOT wrong.

2) The same argument applies equally well to being a plumber. If everyone was a plumber, nobody would be a farmer, there would be no food produced, and the human race would die out because everyone would starve.

It is no more true that homosexuality is wrong because if everyone was gay the human race would go extinct, than it is that being a plumber is wrong because if everyone was a plumber the human race would go extinct.

Nor is being a plumber the only such example. There are a great many things that people do or are all the time that would be very bad if everyone did them. Any occupation that doesn't produce food falls into that category; so does being a monk or nun. "In universal application," any of these would result in the extinction of the human species. But that doesn't make any of them wrong when NOT practiced universally. The same is true of homosexuality.

The entire argument is specious and no basis for concluding that homosexuality is wrong. It is, in fact, the most ridiculous such argument I have ever seen, and that's saying something.

You have failed to demonstrate what moral standard acts of homosexuality meet that cannot be met with heterosexual acts.

Since I am not trying to argue that gay sex is morally superior to straight sex, that's hardly necessary. You're the one trying to condemn a type of sexuality. You're the one who has to do that sort of thing, not I.

Not freedom from moral responsibility.

What I meant was, the overwhelming majority of possible actions I might take are morally neutral and nobody else's business, and do not have to be justified. If anyone wants to condemn any action of mine, THAT is what has to be justified.

EDIT: I just realized something. You have absolutely the wrong posting name. John Locke was a champion of liberty. You, on the other hand, are a champion of tight-lipped restrictive anti-joy morality totally foreign to Mr. Locke's philosophy.

You should change your name to John Calvin. That would be far more appropriate.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

What's wrong with this argument? Two things:

1) What you have presented is not an argument that homosexuality is wrong, but an argument that homosexuality WOULD BE wrong IF everyone was gay.

You are almost showing the capacity to think critically. What WOULD be wrong if everyone was gay?

The answer reveals what is inherently wrong about acting homosexually.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You are almost showing the capacity to think critically. What WOULD be wrong if everyone was gay?

The answer reveals what is inherently wrong about acting homosexually.

So, just for clarification, it's not the act of penis entering anus or mouth or being grasped by hand, but the that the owner of said anus, mouth, or hand happens to have a Y chromosome that makes the act "morally wrong?"

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

The same argument applies equally well to being a plumber.

No it does not because being a plumber is not necessary for human survival but heterosexual acts are. If no one was a plumber and no one acted homosexually the human race would survive.

What is the species argument is asking what if everyone were a plumber because that is merely a division of labor in an economy. Being a plumber is not necessary for human survival but heterosexual acts are. You are comparing things as morally equivalent where one is vital to survival (heterosexual acts) and one that is not vital to survival (plumbing).

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No it does not because being a plumber is not necessary for human survival but heterosexual acts are. If no one was a plumber and no one acted homosexually the human race would survive.

What is the species argument is asking what if everyone were a plumber because that is merely a division of labor in an economy. Being a plumber is not necessary for human survival but heterosexual acts are. You are comparing things as morally equivalent where one is vital to survival (heterosexual acts) and one that is not vital to survival (plumbing).

Nonsense.

With today's technology, every single human could be gay, and the species could still be propagated through IVF.

So we can take "species survival" off the list of reasons to oppress gays.

Matt

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Nonsense.

With today's technology, every single human could be gay, and the species could still be propagated through IVF.

So we can take "species survival" off the list of reasons to oppress gays.

Matt

Well, never mind that sexuality appears to be on a spectrum, so even those who are gay often have had heterosexual relationships as well, and those who are straight have had homosexual relations.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Well, never mind that sexuality appears to be on a spectrum, so even those who are gay often have had heterosexual relationships as well, and those who are straight have had homosexual relations.

That as well, but even were it for some reason no longer the case, the species survival argument still fails.

Cheers!

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Nonsense.

With today's technology, every single human could be gay, and the species could still be propagated through IVF.

What a cop out! IVF is a form of heterosexual action.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

That as well, but even were it for some reason no longer the case, the species survival argument still fails.

How so?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

What a cop out! IVF is a form of heterosexual action.

Utter folly.

Leaving aside for a moment the patent silliness of claiming a medical procedure is a form of sexual action, what if a female physician performs the procedure with an all female staff? No men involved (save, of course for the donor, who is for the sake of argument many miles away).

Face it, the "species survival" argument fails in the modern world. You'll just have to go back to the talking points and select another reason to oppress gays.

Matt

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No it does not because being a plumber is not necessary for human survival but heterosexual acts are.

FARMING, or anyway some form of food production, is necessary for human survival. If everyone was a plumber, no one would be a farmer.

HETEROSEXUAL SEX, or anyway some means of causing conception, is necessary for human survival. If everyone was gay, no one would engage in straight sex.

The parallel is exact.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

That as well, but even were it for some reason no longer the case, the species survival argument still fails.

Cheers!

Oh, absolutely.

We can agree to disagree with the absurd arguments put forth?