Originally posted by NordlysI will try.
Huh? 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.
I don't believe in this. I don't believe the human species can survive without diversity.
Diversity is to become natural, the same way it has happened until
now. Since it is not sicentificaly demonstrated that same sex parents
do NOT influence the sexuality of the children, then we can assume
there is a possibility they do. Ergo, influencing a generation of humans
into homosexuality would be altering the natural course of things.
Same sex parenting would be affecting diversity.
That makes the question whether some trait or characteristic would
extinguish the species if everybody would have it rather meaningless.
Since the aforementioned sentence was flawed, this one is too.
However, I will repeat to you what I said to Bosse. There is
nothing meaningless in philosophy. It helps you figure
out if something is intrinsecally good or bad, not in terms of evil
and goodness, but in terms of self-nurturing of the humankind
survival. Maybe you hate humankind, but I don't, and it is
very important to orientate every societal decision to the
survival, goodstance and harmony within humankind. Whatever
it helps humans to live better and in harmony with ourselves and
our environment it is intrinsecally good and should orientate
societal decisions. See my point regarding why it is not meaningless
to theorize about those things?
some people have a brilliant mind, but are completely hopeless when it comes to practical tasks.
After this, in my honest opinion, all your analogy is flawed and
sophistic, becaseu homosexuality is not a profile of mind. It is
a sexual orientation with incidences in a subjective not practical
level (i.e. brilliant minds, being handy, etc.). Those incidences
are the ones researched right now and the ones that will tell us
if children are or not affected by same sex parents.
Originally posted by SeitseOK...I'm setting this up for someone else to take a shot at (I would but it has already deconstructed itself into nothing in front of my eyes).
Since it is not sicentificaly demonstrated that same sex parents
do NOT influence the sexuality of the children, then we can assume
there is a possibility they do. Ergo, influencing a generation of humans
into homosexuality would be altering the natural course of things.
Same sex parenting would be affecting diversity.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually, your idea minus the homosexuality bit is not a million miles away from Plato's ideas... but that was the use of lots for the propagation of the best specimens.
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]... nce asked a woman if she enjoyed a bit of Kant from time to time and she told me to get stuffed.
Lots were fixed, of course.
So if you were the hunchbacked, shortsighted fellow of the area, and you kept on drawing that beastly heffer from from no.11, then you'd also have to believe you were unlucky to boot, despite being a hunchback.
But if you were a shortsighted hunchback, maybe you wouldn't mind anyway, so everyone's a winner. Well done, Plato!
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI disagree... entirely. And you misunderstand and also misrepresent my point of view.
Not so 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 ...[text shortened]... h is exactly what gay couples wishing to adopt kids want to do.
I don't see the problem.
I would argue that homosexuality is mainly the result of social conditioning anyway.
But my argument (clearly stated above, by the way 😠) was not that any sexual being that does not reproduce is unnatural.
It was that natural sexual desire will draw a man and a woman together, because the reason that sex exists is not for our general entertainment, but for reproduction.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this, but I just wanted to make my point of view clear to you. Cheers!
😉
1 edit
Originally posted by sjegHeh, I think homosexuality was implicit in Plato's thinking.
Actually, your idea minus the homosexuality bit is not a million miles away from Plato's ideas... but that was the use of lots for the propagation of the best specimens!
You'll probably find the hunchback wouldn't get a look-in, though (eugh, say the beautiful people); I doubt whether Plato's eugenics would tolerate hunchbacks, dwarves or other non-standard people from reproducing.
Was Plato a bit of a Nazi, then? I've tried to read him but only in bits as he bores me. Must be the translation.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's not the translation, he's irritatingly obtuse about the points he should be being critically analytical about and quite frankly I have yet to completely dismiss the hypothesis that he never intended any of his work to be viewed philosophically. It demands the most rich interpretation we can give him because of its poorly presented arguments and in doing so, removes it from any clear agreement on the arguments presented.
Heh, I think homosexuality was implicit in Plato's thinking.
You'll probably find the hunchback wouldn't get a look-in, though (eugh, say the beautiful people); I doubt whether Plato's eugenics would tolerate hunchbacks, dwarves or other non-standard people from reproducing.
Was Plato a bit of a Nazi, then? I've tried to read him but only in bits as he bores me. Must be the translation.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, he gets the short end of the stick quite often as being given credit as the origin of all evil in Western thought.
Heh, I think homosexuality was implicit in Plato's thinking.
You'll probably find the hunchback wouldn't get a look-in, though (eugh, say the beautiful people); I doubt whether Plato's eugenics would tolerate hunchbacks, dwarves or other non-standard people from reproducing.
Was Plato a bit of a Nazi, then? I've tried to read him but only in bits as he bores me. Must be the translation.
But he is the business. The translation (Penguin) is brutal, though. Some stuff is just wrong.
Originally posted by StarrmanSo... you could do a bit better, then? Well, why don't you draw up a utopia, print it out and post it here. I'd give it a read. 😉
It's not the translation, he's irritatingly obtuse about the points he should be being critically analytical about and quite frankly I have yet to completely dismiss the hypothesis that he never intended any of his work to be viewed philosophically. It demands the most rich interpretation we can give him because of its poorly presented arguments and in doing so, removes it from any clear agreement on the arguments presented.
Originally posted by sjegHis idea of booting poets out bespeaks a Phrygian cap concealing a hive of angry bees, I think. Then again, "noble values" pertained at the time, so it's hard to judge.
Well, he gets the short end of the stick quite often as being given credit as the origin of all evil in Western thought.
Which ones are the most profound? -- the most entertaining?
Originally posted by sjegI have no desire to create a Utopia, and perhaps I would be unable to even if I did (though it is a matter of some debate whether Plato's could work either) but that's not the issue at hand. If I tried to present one of Plato's arguments in dialogue, I'd do a hell of a lot better than he did.
So... you could do a bit better, then? Well, why don't you draw up a utopia, print it out and post it here. I'd give it a read. 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanA condensed one, with suitably updated characters drawn from your cultural milieu, would probably be quite a laugh.
If I tried to present one of Plato's arguments in dialogue, I'd do a hell of a lot better than he did.
Did you know that Thomas More's Utopia is supposed to be a sort of deadpan satire? The bloke was weird.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually I really enjoy the subject matter of the Republic, it is a very entertaining topic. I also like the Meno for it's godsdunnit aspect.
His idea of booting poets out bespeaks a Phrygian cap concealing a hive of angry bees, I think. Then again, "noble values" pertained at the time, so it's hard to judge.
Which ones are the most profound? -- the most entertaining?
1 edit
let them adopt children. it is better for a child to live with gay parents than to live in an orphanage.
sure it will take some time to explain why daddy kisses daddy but the kid will survive. i think he will understand that it is not shameful to have gay parents earlier than realising something is wrong.
Originally posted by SeitseSince it is not sicentificaly demonstrated that same sex parents
I will try.
I don't believe in this. I don't believe the human species can survive without diversity.
Diversity is to become natural, the same way it has happened until
now. Since it is not sicentificaly demonstrated that same sex parents
do NOT influence the sexuality of the children, then we can assume
there is a possibility they do. Ergo, i ...[text shortened]... ld be altering the natural course of things.
Same sex parenting would be affecting diversity.
do NOT influence the sexuality of the children, then we can assume
there is a possibility they do.
From http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html :
" Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents. For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36 teenagers, half of whom were offspring of lesbian mothers and half of heterosexual mothers. No children of lesbian mothers identified themselves as lesbian or gay, but one child of a heterosexual mother did; this difference was not statistically significant. In a recent study, Bailey and his colleagues (1995) studied adult sons of gay fathers and found more than 90% of the sons to be heterosexual. Because the heterosexual and nonheterosexual sons did not differ in the length of time they had resided with their fathers, the effects of the exposure to the fathers' sexual orientation on the sons' sexual orientation must have been either very small or nonexistent."
Sounds pretty conclusive. But even if the studies were all wrong and it turned out that it's a bit more likely for a child growing up with homosexual parents to become homosexual than for a child growing up with heterosexual parents or a single parent, I can neither see how that would affect diversity, nor how it would be "altering the natural course of things" (whether altering the natural course of things is good or bad or neutral is a different question - I think it may be bad in some cases, but in other cases I would see it as morally wrong not to alter the natural course of things). I don't think it's unnatural to have a desire to have children. I don't think it's unnatural to adopt children. If you wanted to avoid altering the natural course of things, shouldn't you drop all laws about adoption and just let people do what they want? Again, I don't say this would be the best solution - I don't think everyone who wants to adopt is a suitable parent. But if you don't want to alter the natural course of things, I can't see why you would forbid homosexual couples to adopt children.
Another point - why should homosexual adoptive parents have to prove that they will not influence the sexuality of their children, but you don't ask the same of other adoptive parents? Can you prove that being homophobic, belonging to a certain social class or having red hair won't result in a higher percentage of homosexuality in the adopted children? Adoptive parents (just like any other parents) will always have an influence on their children in most areas of life. The children would turn out different if they had different parents or would grow up in an orphanage. That may or may not include their sexuality. So what?
I'll address the rest of your points in a different post.