Originally posted by SeitseFor argument's sake, all the world could be gay and the species continue. Enough gay women have had themselves artificially inseminated to prove this point. Plus, consider your argument's hidden reverse: it is clearly not fine for everyone to be heterosexual, considering the misery undergone by gays who try to be straight.
Ergo, there is no science in saying that
if all the world would be homosexual the human species would
disappear, ergo, thoug it is a respectable stance for anybody,
it cannot apply to all and it should be left to its normal
development, [b]not to foster it nor promote it.[/b]
Google up a good article on berdaches and tell me what you think.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn a theoretical, pure philosophical point of view, the
For argument's sake, all the world could be gay and the species continue. Enough gay women have had themselves artificially inseminated to prove this point. Plus, consider your argument's hidden reverse: it is clearly not fine for everyone to be heterosexual, considering the misery undergone by gays who try to be straight.
Google up a good article on berdaches and tell me what you think.
insemination argument is not even allowed, Bosse. I think
I stressed that earlier, but now I see it was in another post.
Keep exercising it: What would happen if ALL the humans had cars.
It would destroy the environment and, eventually, all of us. Ergo,
it is not intrinsecally good that everybody has a car, thus it
cannot be a right. However, it is a right and it is intrinsecally good
that affordable, decent public transportation is available.
Etc. etc. etc.
P.S. Applied inversed: Suppose all humans were heterosexual.
Would it damage the susrvival of the species? Au contraire, mon
ami 🙂
It boils down to: It supports or attacks survival of the species.
That is the aristotelic exercise.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseThankfully the pure philosophical point of view is not applied to real-life situations, because it is no way to run a world. Just an opinion.
It boils down to: It supports or attacks survival of the species.
That is the aristotelic exercise.
Forget artificial insemination--devise an alternate scenario: women are inseminated by a man (of their own choosing or picked out of a hat), perhaps at a certain time of year, in order to propagate the species. It is considered a civic duty, unpleasant but honourable for both sexes to perform. The rest of the year its Mardi Gras all round.
Speaking of Aristotle, the ancient Greek view of wives is apposite.
Edit--attempting to apply Kant across the board is a monomaniacal exercise. Human existence cannot be stuffed into a categorical imperative. I know because once asked a woman if she enjoyed a bit of Kant from time to time and she told me to get stuffed.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageer... well... then we have different views, mate. I do think
Thankfully the pure philosophical point of view is not applied to real-life situations, because it is no way to run a world. Just an opinion.
Forget artificial insemination--devise an alternate scenario: women are inseminated by a man (of their own choosing or picked out of a hat), perhaps at a certain time of year, in order to propagate the species ...[text shortened]... ts Mardi Gras all round.
Speaking of Aristotle, the ancient Greek view of wives is apposite.
philosophy is desperately needed in these times of loneliness,
emptiness, shallowness and angst.
More than ever, not memorizing but trully thinking in a critical
way in the pursuit of our own happiness and the good to our
brothers and sisters, it is desperately needed. Personal, honest
opinion.
Sometimes the wisdom of the past helps solving the problems
of the present for the sake of a future.
Edit. Now rec me for the noble statement I've just shared 😉
Edit. Wait... recs disappeared!!! 😲
Originally posted by SeitseI totally agree with this post. At the same time the past can't dictate to the present. I don't think ancient Greek men and women got on at all well however recommendable their philosophers.
er... well... then we have different views, mate. I do think
philosophy is desperately needed in these times of loneliness,
emptiness, shallowness and angst.
More than ever, not memorizing but trully thinking in a critical
way in the pursuit of our own happiness and the good to our
brothers and sisters, it is desperately needed. Personal, honest
opin ...[text shortened]... esent for the sake of a future.
Edit. Now rec me for the noble statement I've just shared 😉
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBerdache status was never forced on anyone.
Find a good article on berdaches, and tell me what you think.
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/berdache.htm
I think this is the whole issue. We both agree homosexual people
deserve respect. Thus, we are not discussing about if it is
good or bad and thus they should be destroyed or some crazy
thing like that.
What we differ about, though, is that I suspect same
sex parenting would be a way of forcing the children to
become homosexuals (kids imitate, you know) and, in the long
run, that is the doom of humankind because of what I've
explained before.
Therefore, people should be raised as we were all raised the last
bunch of thousands of years and, as it has happened always,
there will be gays. But not fostered not promoted.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseAh, the slippery slope.
Berdache status was never forced on anyone.
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/berdache.htm
What we differ about, though, is that I [b]suspect same
sex parenting would be a way of forcing the children to
become homosexuals (kids imitate, you know) and, in the long
run, that is the doom of humankind because of what I've
explained before.[/b]
"People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. " (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)
http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html
Of course this is the result of a quick Google, not the product of my expert opinion. But there seems to a logical fallacy involved somewhere: your argument is that it is natural for people to be straight unless their parents are not in which case nature goes out the door and nurture takes over completely.
It seems to be natural for about 10% of people to be gay.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, although the Bible says that due to their fruits thou shall
I don't think ancient Greek men and women got on at all well however recommendable their philosophers.
know them I somehow find dangerous not to analyze a thought
because of the flaws of the issuer.
On one hand I may agree with you when it comes to reading
Mein Kampf, yet think about Sade on the other hand.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI do not have an expert opinion either, mate. That's what
Ah, the slippery slope.
"People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. " (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)
http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html
Of course this is the result of a quick Google, not the product of my expert opinion.
is all about. There is no scientific, unflawed data to support
none of the positions (for and against)... yet.
And I hate that, because as long as we don't have it, it would
be like recommending high dosis of asbesto for the sake
of public health, lol
🙂
Originally posted by SeitseThat's not what I mean, eh. You have to weigh it all up. The Renaissance happened because people started looking critically at Aristotle rather than taking him on authority.
Well, although the Bible says that due to their fruits thou shall
know them I somehow find dangerous not to analyze a thought
because of the flaws of the issuer.
On one hand I may agree with you when it comes to reading
Mein Kampf, yet think about Sade on the other hand.