Originally posted by Bosse de NageLol, you didn't fall.
That'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.
Damn it.
Sorry, I was trying some sophisma on you.
No offense intended 😉
Originally posted by SeitseI don't believe in this. I don't believe the human species can survive without diversity. That makes the question whether some trait or characteristic would extinguish the species if everybody would have it rather meaningless. For example, some people have a brilliant mind, but are completely hopeless when it comes to practical tasks. If everybody would be like that, the species might not survive. But that doesn't mean they don't contribute something of value to the society. Maybe society could survive without them, but it would be a very different society.
Any time you want to figure out the intrinsec goodness of
something, theoreticaly apply it to the whole species and if it
extinguishes it, then you cannot apply the value as a universal
truth that may be released widespread to develop freely
in societal terms.
If I follow your argumentation, people with brilliant minds who are hopeless at practical tasks should not be allowed to adopt children. Those children might have a higher chance of becoming clumsy scientists, too, and just think of where that would lead us.
Originally posted by NordlysYour reasoning is flawed. It is not about genetic cleansing,
I don't believe in this. I don't believe the human species can survive without diversity. That makes the question whether some trait or characteristic would extinguish the species if everybody would have it rather meaningless. For example, some people have a brilliant mind, but are completely hopeless when it comes to practical tasks. If everybody would be l ...[text shortened]... igher chance of becoming clumsy scientists, too, and just think of where that would lead us.
because there is nothing genetically wrong with
homosexuals. Your comparison sounds even homophobic. I
don't like homophobes. Sorry.
Originally posted by SeitseHuh? Where did I talk about genetic cleansing? And what's homophobic about my comparison? Please elaborate. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Your reasoning is flawed. It is not about genetic cleansing,
because there is nothing genetically [b]wrong with
homosexuals. Your comparison sounds even homophobic. I
don't like homophobes. Sorry.[/b]
Originally posted by sjegNot so simple.
It is unnatural because natural sexual desire draws a man and a woman together, or a male and female, if you like. Of course, we as a species are unique in that we have developed sex into a recreational sport, if you like, but that does not rule out the reason for sex existing in the first place, and that is procreation. That is the most natural of desires, and arguably the reason for our existence.
Quite simple.
It's natural by definition, since there are people - born naturally - who 'naturally' have that sexual orientation.
Your argument is that we must reporduce therefore anything that doesn't reproduce is unnatural?
Many individuals within many species go unfulfilled with respect to reproduction. Does this make them 'unnatural'? Hardly.
What would seem to be natural to me is a desire to care for and nurture the next generation. Which is exactly what gay couples wishing to adopt kids want to do.
I don't see the problem.