Post Reply
Page 23 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View North Carolina Pastor: Put Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen To Kill Them Off
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:00PM #221
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Ken wrote:

You have said that homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, is detached from procreation. I have asked you quite plainly why this makes homosexually inferior to heterosexuality or in any sense morally wrong. Can you answer that?



Isn't the answer obvious?


No. The argument from obviousness is invalid, and you ought to know that.


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It would be like, for example, saying that trying to "eat" by shoving food up one's nose, or simply smearing it on the skin, is objectively equal to putting food in one's mouth, chewing and swallowing.


Why not say that it would be like a gourmet eating to enjoy the chef's culinary artistry instead of to satisfy hunger?


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.


Why inferior? If the "out-of-context" desires and actions are still thoroughly worthwhile in themselves, why deprecate them by calling them inferior? One of the oldest and most aesthetically sophisticated traditions in Western art, the representation of beautiful human forms, undoubtedly derives from our sexual urges, but it is divorced from the context of procreation. Would you therefore describe it as inferior and immoral?  




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:07PM #222
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.



How would you know if it were inferior, have you had sex with people, same sex as yourself???


Inferior for you, is not inferior for everyone else. Who made you a god with the ability and right to decide for others what is superior and inferior?

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:27PM #223
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 25, 2012 -- 3:00PM, Ken wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Ken wrote:

You have said that homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, is detached from procreation. I have asked you quite plainly why this makes homosexually inferior to heterosexuality or in any sense morally wrong. Can you answer that?



Isn't the answer obvious?


No. The argument from obviousness is invalid, and you ought to know that.


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It would be like, for example, saying that trying to "eat" by shoving food up one's nose, or simply smearing it on the skin, is objectively equal to putting food in one's mouth, chewing and swallowing.


Why not say that it would be like a gourmet eating to enjoy the chef's culinary artistry instead of to satisfy hunger?


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.


Why inferior? If the "out-of-context" desires and actions are still thoroughly worthwhile, why deprecate them by calling them inferior? One of the oldest and most aesthetically sophisticated traditions in Western art, the representation of beautiful human forms, undoubtedly derives from our sexual urges, but it is divorced from the context of procreation. Would you therefore describe it as inferior and immoral?  







As I already noted to another poster, you're trying to mix up the concepts of immediate purpose and underlying reason, and thus try to argue against the strawman that "sex is for making babies only."


There are many immediate purposes for any particular sex acts. Stress relief, pair bonding and just plain fun, to name only a few.


But the reason we even have a sex drive in the first place, is procreation.


"Thoroughly worthwhile" in the context you're using here, is totally subjective. 


I never said there's anything wrong with that. I've noted numerous times, people should enjoy great sex, regardless of immediate purpose. And of course, creativity is always a plus!


But that's simply no proof of objective equality. 


How could something completely out of the context of underlying purpose not be inferior to that within the context.


Again, it would be like trying to argue that smearing food on one's skin isn't inferior to putting it in your mouth, chewing, and swallowing. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:30PM #224
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 25, 2012 -- 3:07PM, mainecaptain wrote:



May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.



How would you know if it were inferior, have you had sex with people, sex as yourself???


Inferior for you, is not inferior for everyone else. Who made you a god with the ability and right to decide for others what is superior and inferior?




Apply basic reason and rationality. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:46PM #225
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 25, 2012 -- 3:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:00PM, Ken wrote:

Why inferior? If the "out-of-context" desires and actions are still thoroughly worthwhile, why deprecate them by calling them inferior? One of the oldest and most aesthetically sophisticated traditions in Western art, the representation of beautiful human forms, undoubtedly derives from our sexual urges, but it is divorced from the context of procreation. Would you therefore describe it as inferior and immoral?  




As I already noted to another poster, you're trying to mix up the concepts of immediate purpose and underlying reason, and thus try to argue against the strawman that "sex is for making babies only."


There are many immediate purposes for any particular sex acts. Stress relief, pair bonding and just plain fun, to name only a few.


But the reason we even have a sex drive in the first place, is procreation.


"Thoroughly worthwhile" in the context you're using here, is totally subjective. 


I never said there's anything wrong with that. I've noted numerous times, people should enjoy great sex, regardless of immediate purpose. And of course, creativity is always a plus!


But that's simply no proof of objective equality. 


How could something completely out of the context of underlying purpose not be inferior to that within the context.


Why are you even bringing the concepts of inferiority and superiority into it? Why are natural urges and their various expressions to be judged inferior because they have been dissociated from their original "purposes" and brought into the service of other purposes? That is what I'm trying to get; that is what I am trying to understand.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:53PM #226
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

May 25, 2012 -- 3:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:07PM, mainecaptain wrote:



May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.



How would you know if it were inferior, have you had sex with people, sex as yourself???


Inferior for you, is not inferior for everyone else. Who made you a god with the ability and right to decide for others what is superior and inferior?




Apply basic reason and rationality. 




Do you believe that no one else here is capable of basic reason and rationality? Just because we disagree with you does not mean we do not possess the ability to reason and be rational.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 3:53PM #227
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 25, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Ken wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:00PM, Ken wrote:

Why inferior? If the "out-of-context" desires and actions are still thoroughly worthwhile, why deprecate them by calling them inferior? One of the oldest and most aesthetically sophisticated traditions in Western art, the representation of beautiful human forms, undoubtedly derives from our sexual urges, but it is divorced from the context of procreation. Would you therefore describe it as inferior and immoral?  




As I already noted to another poster, you're trying to mix up the concepts of immediate purpose and underlying reason, and thus try to argue against the strawman that "sex is for making babies only."


There are many immediate purposes for any particular sex acts. Stress relief, pair bonding and just plain fun, to name only a few.


But the reason we even have a sex drive in the first place, is procreation.


"Thoroughly worthwhile" in the context you're using here, is totally subjective. 


I never said there's anything wrong with that. I've noted numerous times, people should enjoy great sex, regardless of immediate purpose. And of course, creativity is always a plus!


But that's simply no proof of objective equality. 


How could something completely out of the context of underlying purpose not be inferior to that within the context.


Why are you even bringing the concepts of inferiority and superiority into it? Why are natural urges and their various expressions to be judged inferior because they have been dissociated from their original "purposes" and brought into the service of other purposes? That is what I'm trying to get; that is what I am trying to understand.




On the micro level, you're correct, and I agree. Nobody should care. So long as it does not involve forcible rape, or the molestation of children, then I think we can all agree, sex acts are nobody's business but that of the participants. 


On the macro level, a false bill of goods has been, and is being sold. That's noteworthy, I think. Worthy of getting up in arms about? 


Probably not. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 4:03PM #228
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786


May 25, 2012 -- 3:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:07PM, mainecaptain wrote:



May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.



How would you know if it were inferior, have you had sex with people, same sex as yourself???


Inferior for you, is not inferior for everyone else. Who made you a god with the ability and right to decide for others what is superior and inferior?




Apply basic reason and rationality. 





Answer the question.


How would you know that same sex relations are inferior unless you have engaged in them. And even if they were inferior to you. That does not mean they would be for others.


My question is very reasonable and rational. The fact that you responded as you did shows you do not seem capable of being reasonable and rational.


You do not have the right or knowledge to know whether they are or not inferior or superior. And it is really none of your business, How consenting adults conduct their personal lives.


It really bothers you, that same sex couples are having as much pleasure (or perhaps more pleasure) having sex then yourself?


You really do protest too much.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 4:05PM #229
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 25, 2012 -- 3:53PM, Sigmund wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:30PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:07PM, mainecaptain wrote:



May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context.



How would you know if it were inferior, have you had sex with people, sex as yourself???


Inferior for you, is not inferior for everyone else. Who made you a god with the ability and right to decide for others what is superior and inferior?




Apply basic reason and rationality. 




Do you believe that no one else here is capable of basic reason and rationality? Just because we disagree with you does not mean we do not possess the ability to reason and be rational.




It's not about ability. Perfectly intelligent, or even brilliant people can be married to irrational ideas (no pun intended.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 4:06PM #230
Sigmund
Posts: 1,305

May 25, 2012 -- 3:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Ken wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 3:00PM, Ken wrote:

Why inferior? If the "out-of-context" desires and actions are still thoroughly worthwhile, why deprecate them by calling them inferior? One of the oldest and most aesthetically sophisticated traditions in Western art, the representation of beautiful human forms, undoubtedly derives from our sexual urges, but it is divorced from the context of procreation. Would you therefore describe it as inferior and immoral?  




As I already noted to another poster, you're trying to mix up the concepts of immediate purpose and underlying reason, and thus try to argue against the strawman that "sex is for making babies only."


There are many immediate purposes for any particular sex acts. Stress relief, pair bonding and just plain fun, to name only a few.


But the reason we even have a sex drive in the first place, is procreation.


"Thoroughly worthwhile" in the context you're using here, is totally subjective. 


I never said there's anything wrong with that. I've noted numerous times, people should enjoy great sex, regardless of immediate purpose. And of course, creativity is always a plus!


But that's simply no proof of objective equality. 


How could something completely out of the context of underlying purpose not be inferior to that within the context.


Why are you even bringing the concepts of inferiority and superiority into it? Why are natural urges and their various expressions to be judged inferior because they have been dissociated from their original "purposes" and brought into the service of other purposes? That is what I'm trying to get; that is what I am trying to understand.




On the micro level, you're correct, and I agree. Nobody should care. So long as it does not involve forcible rape, or the molestation of children, then I think we can all agree, sex acts are nobody's business but that of the participants. 


On the macro level, a false bill of goods has been, and is being sold. That's noteworthy, I think. Worthy of getting up in arms about? 


Probably not. 




What false bill of goods is being sold?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook