Gay Marriage split

[_Chap]

[...] My views of homosexuality are a result of an adult lifetime of thought and reflection on the subject, [...]

I am strangely stirred by the mental image of Coggins spending his adult lifetime reflecting on homosexuality.

I really hope he has found the experience a fulfilling one.

[_The Nehor]

[...] My views of homosexuality are a result of an adult lifetime of thought and reflection on the subject, [...]

I am strangely stirred by the mental image of Coggins spending his adult lifetime reflecting on homosexuality.

I really hope he has found the experience a fulfilling one.

I hope that your strangely stirring is also fulfilling.

[Guest]

Don't let Rollo's intellectual dog and pony show fool you. Homosexuals can only "have" children after others have had them - others who have engaged in heterosexual relations that homosexuals have shunned. In this sense, homosexuality, in the area of childbearing, is parasitic in nature (and by definition) and dependent upon the child bearing classes (heterosexuals).

Not anymore. As we all know, the act of heterosexual intercourse is no longer necessary to conceive a child -- science has taken care of that. Many lesbians go to the sperm bank and carry their own child. Sorry, Droop, foiled again!

Ahh, the brave new world redux. Science and technology Trump's humankind's moral boundaries. This is what might properly be called the "Dr Frankenstein Syndrome". We see this with the debates revolving around embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and, of course, the ability to "have" children without actually conceiving them. The core argument is that, since x is technologically possible, x is technologically, or socially, required. The existence of the technology requires is use. No moral or ethical considerations should be allowed to interfere in the ability of technology to circumvent prior moral demarcation lines that would at one time have placed unambiguous limits upon human hubris and behavioral options.

Do androids dream of electric sheep? Perhaps that question should be asked before we attempt to meddle in matters better left to the gods. In like manner, should homosexuals be allowed open legal recognition of their (rare) longer term liaisons as equal with heterosexual marriage and family organization? The answer to that question is not founded in questions of techological manipulation of child bearing functions but in moral, philosophical, and metaphysical questions of the ultimate meaaning of our existence and experience here.

Rollo's implied argument here, that technology, by making an end run around previous limitations grounded in biological limitations legitimizes homosexuality or homosexual 'families" by default is not logically cogent but simply utilitarian, and utilitarian ethics are subject to the same cultural moral and intellectual drift as are all other purely human ethical systems.

[_antishock8]

My views of homosexuality are a result of an adult lifetime of thought and reflection on the subject...

[_Droopy]

Heh. Feel free to share those arguments, especially regarding homosexuality.

Two areas where you need to do a great deal of serious reading E: George Gilder and the status of AGW theory.

Its probably going to take years to catch up E, so I'd get down to it if I were you.

[_TAK]

[...] My views of homosexuality are a result of an adult lifetime of thought and reflection on the subject, [...]

Yes its called denial..
You and Wade should hook up.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Don't let Rollo's intellectual dog and pony show fool you. Homosexuals can only "have" children after others have had them - others who have engaged in heterosexual relations that homosexuals have shunned. In this sense, homosexuality, in the area of childbearing, is parasitic in nature (and by definition) and dependent upon the child bearing classes (heterosexuals).

Not anymore. As we all know, the act of heterosexual intercourse is no longer necessary to conceive a child -- science has taken care of that. Many lesbians go to the sperm bank and carry their own child. Sorry, Droop, foiled again!

Rollo's implied argument here, that technology, by making an end run around previous limitations grounded in biological limitations legitimizes homosexuality or homosexual 'families" by default is not logically cogent but simply utilitarian, and utilitarian ethics are subject to the same cultural moral and intellectual drift as are all other purely human ethical systems.

You are the one who proffered the argument that homosexuals can't marry because they "can only 'have' children after others have had them." Of course, the same applies for many heterosexuals who are barren and can't have children, and adopt. Face it, Droop, asserting the "but they can't have children!" tripe and then trying to only apply it to homosexuals (and not to the innumerable heterosexuals who can't have children), is simply absurd. You're going to have to find a better argument to justify your bigotry.

[_EAllusion]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a question asked in the book of the same name in order to make distinctions between humanity and non-humanity on the basis of feeling empathy with others. It's pseudointellectual nonsense as used here. I'm not sure who it is meant to impress, as those who even get the allusion probably are going to understand this.

I have read a little George Gilder. He's one of the founders of the Discovery Institute - the ID think tank. I tend to know a little bit about almost all DI fellows on account of following creationist/anti-evolution movements. As it happens, I have read some of his writing on homosexuality and think you should share it.

[_Droopy]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a question asked in the book of the same name in order to make distinctions between humanity and non-humanity on the basis of feeling empathy with others. It's pseudointellectual nonsense as used here. I'm not sure who it is meant to impress, as those who even get the allusion probably are going to understand this.

You're sophistry has never worked on me E, and it never will. There is far more to Dick's story than you want to let on. The larger theme of that story is the limitless reach of human hubris unaccustomed to moral considerations and the question of whether or not just because something is technologically feasible, in this case, the creation of artificial humans, it is ethically appropriate.

I have read a little George Gilder. He's one of the founders of the Discovery Institute - the ID think tank. I tend to know a little bit about almost all DI fellows on account of following creationist/anti-evolution movements. As it happens, I have read some of his writing on homosexuality and think you should share it.

Move along, nothing to see here yet again. ID and fundamentalist creationism are not at all the same thing, and, for many serious ID supporters, both religious and non-religious, any conflation of the two is ounterproductive. The most famous of the eminent scientists associated with the realization of the necessity of a creative intelligence in the universe, Whitehead, Jeans, Eddington, Hoyle etc., were never believers, in any traditional Christian, or any other, sense.

The conflation of the serious and, frankly devastating criticisms of ID with Creationism is just a tactic E, not a substantive engagement of their arguments.

My reference to Gilder was not his views of homosexuality. If you will read the post again, you will see its reference was to the "taming of men" within traditional western culture marriage is a pivotal element in accomplishing.

[_Droopy]

You are the one who proffered the argument that homosexuals can't marry because they "can only 'have' children after others have had them."

That's never been my argument. My argument is that they cannot marry, in any normative senses, because they are homosexuals, and that state of affairs is utterly incongruent with both the purpose and nature of marriage.

Of course, the same applies for many heterosexuals who are barren and can't have children, and adopt. Face it, Droop, asserting the "but they can't have children!" tripe and then trying to only apply it to homosexuals (and not to the innumerable heterosexuals who can't have children), is simply absurd. You're going to have to find a better argument to justify your bigotry.

Typical liberal, just trying to be popular with himself in the mirror. Is your self anointed sense of moral superiority assuaged now?

This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with principle.