Originally posted by SeitseI am not saying philosophy is meaningless, or that we shouldn't theorize about those things. However, I do believe it is meaningless when it's based on a false assumption. If the survival of the human species relies on diversity, you can't evaluate the "goodness" of a trait by applying it to every human being and looking at what would happen. A trait can be not only good, but even necessary for the survival of the species, but the same trait could be destructive if everybody had that trait.
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
[b]nothing meaningless in philosophy. It helps you figure
out if something is i ...[text shortened]... decisions. See my point regarding why it is not meaningless
to theorize about those things? [/b]
I don't know where you got the idea that I hate humankind. I want to help humans to live better and in harmony with ourselves and our environment as much as you do. I happen to believe that allowing homosexual couples to adopt children helps these goals, you don't. The fact that our views differ doesn't mean that one of us hates humankind.
Originally posted by NordlysWhoa, this is getting interesting 🙂
[b]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.
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, W ...[text shortened]... uality. So what?
I'll address the rest of your points in a different post.[/b]
Well, let's go step by step and let me know if I skip something.
Three things I am very interested in:
1. I must dive in statistics and studies because you did and I didn't and that leaves me in disadvantage when debating. Give me some days to check other studies besides the one strong one you shared.
2. 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).
Great point, yet it serves both of our positions. Diversity is key to human survival in harmony, and that is why (in case having same sex parents influences sexuality, as you start to accept as a possibility further in your post) increasing the homosexual population by allowing same sex parenting would possibly push the species into a situation where the survival is at stakes. The same way I oppose bashing of homosexuals and making homosexuality a crime and forcing homosexual teens into treatment to cure the disease (believe me, it happens more often than you think), I oppose same sex parenting. I see both as a threat to diversity. Homosexual people are there, they;ve always been there, and they will always be. Granting them rights outside the scope of the natural stance (gays cannot procreate by themselves) is going against the natural course of things.
We have discussed this before, you and I, and you remember that I still think homosexuality can also be a choice, not necessarily a thing you are born with (at least not 100% of the cases). Perhaps that is the reason of my opposition, because I agree with a banner saying "If you are a homosexual you deserve respect and tolerance from others" but I disagreee with a banner saying "Become gay, go for it".
I think that is the whole influence thing I am afraid of. Kids are easily influenced, and the same way I am sad to see homosexuals that are forced into a heterosexual life, the other way instead makes me sad too.
3. I don't think it's unnatural to have a desire to have children. I don't think it's unnatural to adopt children. and the rest.
Not at all. And, au contraire, there are millions of children without parents or with really lousy ones that are in need of caring, good adoptive parents. As a matter of fact, I believe so passionately about this that it is my personal decision of life to have 2 children eventually: One of my own blood and the other one adopted. Why? Do I have a fertility problem? Not at all, it is a choice. However, being heterosexual provides me the possibility to procreate within the natural course of my sex life (I stress this because a gay person can procreate also, although without enjoying it, lol).
Now, at this point, we must be sincere: Do we have homosexual parents nowadays? Yes, we do. Everywhere. All the time. They've been there and I am sure we can find many examples of homosexual parents that are loving, caring, dedicated parents and certainly role models of what parenting should be.
Thus? Contrary to what you were argumenting, it is not a case of gay adopters, because they already exist everywhere. It is a matter of same sex couples adopting, carrying openly in front of the kid a homosexual lifestyle and, thus, being influential to the kid.
And, at the end of the road, no matter how many rights homosexuals are granted, that will never change the fact that they are a minority for the sake of diversity... and they should remain that way: Homosexuality is an exception, it shall never become (no matter how much people try) the naturalcourse of human sexuality for the sake of survival of the species. Pure biology.