Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daoust
By recuit do you mean reproduce?
I don't think art and procreation can be compared. Your analogy is poor.
We all are humans. Humans make humans. Heterosexual sex creates humans. Like it or not, humans were made to reproduce and "multiply". This has nothing to do with 'homosexuality is bad', but rather, is it non-productive. Before it became commonly understood that the primary purpose for sex was enjoyment only, it was intended for procreation. That's why we have sex. Procreation is necessary for survival. The fact that the act of procreation is enjoyable is a pleasant by-product, not it's primary function.
With or without art we would survive. With only homosexuals mankind is doomed.
|
I was making a joke about the myth that the queer community "recruits" or tries to make straight kids queer.
You're not reading the analogy as intended. Art, if carried to the extreme, would preclude farming, and other survival related occupations. The extreme possibility of such a socieity that took either art or homosexuality as an absolute value is so remote as to remove either possibility from the realm of discussion. To say that "a soceity of all homosexuals would doom" a society is just absurd. Yes...a totally non-procreative society would not have kids...but its not going to happen. So why bother with the possibility?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Prophet
1. It need not be a biological term. There are many things that are unnatural "biologically." Perhaps it is best stated that is "Bio-illogical."
|
So is a lot of human behavior. What percentage of your day's activities are related to your survival or procreation? I'm guessing not much. Cars are bio-illogical. Lightbulbs and not following daylight is bio-illogical.
Quote:
|
2. There are many things other species do that we do not. We are not animals. Would you have me lay on the sidewalk and lick my nuts (only if i could!)? How about kill and eat my young? The "other species" arguement is long dead.
|
What i was NOT trying to do was justify the morality of homosexual behavior. What i WAS stating is that to declare it in opposition with the natural world is a fallacy. What you say is not wrong per se, you just applied the arguement to the wrong argument.
Quote:
|
3. There are many traits, as well as behaviors, that "Man the Species" has outgrown. Nonetheless, this is a very good point - and was perhaps very practical when we beating off lions with sticks and living in caves. Since the biggest arguement of "straights" against homosexuality is the questionable effect the gay lifestyle has on children, this is probably not something you should include in an arguement for the support of gay rights.
|
I'll damn well include it every time. As a queer man who has worked in childcare for most of my life, I'm not about to shrink in the face of the slander that queers are "bad" for children. Talk to the parents i've worked for, talk to the kids i've worked with, and the worst you'll hear is the time i once forgot my tuesday afternoon appointment.
Quote:
|
4. Line? Why? . . .Why? Why you can't be serious can you? There most definately need to be lines drawn to outline what is acceptable behavior within a society or a culture and it is up to the members of that society or culture to debate where those lines are and how far they will be drawn. That is what this debate is - societies members, pencil in hand, arguing over where to draw the lines. They will be drawn. In fact we had all, straight gay or whatever, better hope to hell we continue to draw lines of all kinds or we see all manner of human excrement doing things that will appall the sensibilities of every one of us.
|
My argument is not against lines as a moral device. But in terms of people's private behavior, their most deeply held feelings, and workings of families...I'm quite hard pressed to give any creedence to a "line" imposed by some half-assed natural law decduction. The whole point of natural law is that it is supposed to match human experience. Well...this one doesn't.
Quote:
*** it's a totally specious arguement...he's defining the terms to his liking, then setting up a false conclusion ***
False in your view. This is what an arguement is - define the terms, weigh them against your own experience and knowledge (not the same between any two people) and state a conclussion. Everybodies conclussion that is different than yours will be a "false conclussion."
|
*sigh
There is no weighing of evidence in the arguement being discussed. It had all the complexity and rigor of saying that homosexuality was "icky."