tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110386309753376765..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Reproductive Duty?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-28705392599232246262009-01-07T07:09:00.000-05:002009-01-07T07:09:00.000-05:00This is all assuming the Kantian framework:Your ar...This is all assuming the Kantian framework:<BR/><BR/>Your arguments, Richard, about homosexuals being able to procreate with a partner that is not their preferred, seems to deal with the universalist claim that "If everyone were homosexual, there wouldn't be any new babies". In this case, it's obvious that homosexual's fertility debunks this claim.<BR/><BR/>However, it doesn't really address the universalist claim that, "if everyone were in a homosexual marriage, there wouldn't be any new babies." Depending on one's belief about fidelity in a marriage, (though according to the categorical imperative, infidelity can't be logically universalized because it presupposes marriage, but then universal infidelity cancels it out, much like the theft and property case) it may be morally impossible for the gay couple to actually conceive. (Though recent scientific discoveries may undermine this claim). <BR/><BR/>A better way to refute both, is that because the whole fact that homosexuality is not a choice, and thus the "choice" to have a homosexual marriage is not universalizable (can you really choose to marry homosexual or heterosexual unless you are bisexual in which case the above argument may hold?), it would be ridiculous to say much about anything concerning homosexuality or homosexual marriage under the Categorical Imperative. Homosexuality is not really a moral choice. It's just as absurd as applying the Categorical Imperative to hair color or eye color.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, your arguments that "in reality we have nothing to fear from homosexuals because there aren't enough of them to cause mass human extinction" actually fall out from the only real conceivable choice in these matters that could be scrutinized by Kant's imperative: "If someone were gay it would be permissible for them to marry/have sex or whatever it is homosexuals do =P" In this case, everyone would not be homosexual, everyone would not be homosexually married, merely every homosexual would be married and that's fine because there is no logical contradiction. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, (still keeping within a Kantian framework) one would still be using the woman or man with who they actually conceive as a means to an end, and thus violating the second maxim.<BR/><BR/>As for the Kantian framework itself, it seems as though you are not analyzing the statement, "it should be impermissible for me to be a teacher because if everyone was a teacher blah blah blah", correctly. That is more of a hypothetical imperative, which should only be regarded as a subjective preference (and thus allows for your hallowed plurality) and not as an objective end; it is a means to the end that you so interestingly hinted at when you suggest that everyone should be allowed to do as they see fit, as only this kind of mentality can be logically consistent and only this imperative is really the end we ought to choose (and thus it doesn't matter what profession you choose as long as you saw it fit to be chosen). <BR/><BR/>However, it should be noted that even this, "allow everyone to do as they see fit" must be tempered by a regard for others (we wouldn't want murder now would we), which sounds a lot like Kant's imperative in the first place, one has a perfect duty to the end-nature of others and an imperfect duty to seek perfection for himself and everyone else, in essence allowing people to do as they see fit.<BR/><BR/>Sooo, while I have addressed all of your concerns with the use of the categorical imperative, I must also add that another way to challenge Dallas is by pointing out that he automatically assumes that the long-term interests of society are more important than long-term individual interests (and the absurd thought that society is some sort of holistic entity that shares the rational nature of its components). An assumption that really has nothing to do with Kant at all and thus it becomes hard to do the whole universalizing bit.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892276042849049862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104526606764459572004-12-31T15:56:00.000-05:002004-12-31T15:56:00.000-05:00This argument seems to be based on what seems to m...This argument seems to be based on what seems to me is a glaring mistake: that homosexual women cannot bear children. As they are still women, they sure can still have children, and they do have children. Lots of single women, be they straight or gay, have children. Some of them pay a lot of money for it. Anyway, the assumption should not be so much that as long as there are heterosexual families the species can continue, but as long as there are women the species can conitnue. And certain scientific developments are making that less and less a necessity.<br />What I find troublesome in this logic is the idea that if a behavior, any behavior, has the capacity for becoming problematic at some future time, then society should do its best to discourage it. This sounds like a kind of normalization (even possibly including state intrusion) which I think is just unaccpetable in liberal societies. How can we know what behaviors will turn out to be a problem later on? Especially since we as a society can't seem to agree on what is problematic now (and for good reasons). Huffing paint is bad for you, but we still have paint. Having sex itself can be very bad for you, as it leads to contrating disease, etc.; if it were all for the sake of the species, we'd just give up on sex and all have state-sponsored artificial inseminations. It'd be a lot cleaner, a lot safer, and a whole lot more scary. If the goal is to have stable families to raise children, then there are many ways to do that. The whole "against nature" problematic doesn't seem to bear out the facts, IMHO. There's a lot that humans do thats not in keeping with nature (whatever that is).<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="kramesi at earlham dot edu">Educated Ice</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104497290367214812004-12-31T07:48:00.000-05:002004-12-31T07:48:00.000-05:00We are not in danger of being driven to extinction...<I>We are not in danger of being driven to extinction by homosexuals. Really, we're not.</I>No, we are not. I have not asserted that we were. We should consider why this is so. The reason is that heterosexuality has been and continues to be the predominant mode - a mode that leads - surprise, surprise - to reproduction of the species. Thus, ironically, homosexuals depend upon heterosexuals for the existence of a risk-free environment - an environment in which their sexual proclivities, and the behaviors that flow from them, present no present danger to society.<br /><br />Now, if one mode serves the long-term interests of society so exceptionally well that it enables society to tolerate other modes which do not serve the long-term interests of society (but which may serve the interests of particular individuals), I suggest that it is obviously rational for society to be biased in favor of the mode on which the happy state of affairs depends.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104465844561552782004-12-30T23:04:00.000-05:002004-12-30T23:04:00.000-05:00*sigh* ... One last try then...
Dallas, your argu...*sigh* ... One last try then...<br /><br />Dallas, your argument rested on the harm of species extinction which would purportedly result from universal homosexuality. My response was that in the <I>actual</I> world (which is what matters here), there is no such harm. <B>We are not in danger of being driven to extinction by homosexuals.</B> Really, we're not. The current pluralism is quite sustainable in this regard.<br /><br />I wouldn't have thought it <I>that</I> hard an argument to follow. It's a pity you felt the need to resort to petty mockery. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104329186407601322004-12-29T09:06:00.000-05:002004-12-29T09:06:00.000-05:00But Dallas seems to be unfamiliar with everyday En...<I>But Dallas seems to be unfamiliar with everyday English usage . . . </I>I was just sweeping the floor for those who are too lazy to express themselves with precision. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104328876909979142004-12-29T09:01:00.000-05:002004-12-29T09:01:00.000-05:00To: His Excellency, King Ricardo I
While I unders...To: His Excellency, King Ricardo I<br /><br />While I understand that you have a high-falutin' image of yourself as a student of philosophy and while I recognize that narcissistic arrogance runs rampant among the gliberals heirarchy, I'm nonetheless surprised by your patronizing tone. I had the impression you were capable of suppressing your majestic tendencies while mingling with the hoi polloi in the marketplace of ideas. Not wanting to unduly offend Your Highness, I'll just respond to one of your points, and then you can decide whether or not you will deign to descend again from your interplanetary throne as a Master of the Universe for further conversation.<br /><br />It matters not whether a proposition is posed as an argument or a counter-argument. A proposition is either sound or it is unsound. If one relies upon it, one has the burden to demonstrate its soundness.<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104314601745082072004-12-29T05:03:00.000-05:002004-12-29T05:03:00.000-05:00Dallas claims: "1. Discrimination is discriminatio...Dallas claims: "1. Discrimination is discrimination however you hedge your language.But, we discriminate all the time. E.g., we don't allow minors to vote (even though many of them are much more knowledgeable than many adults)."<br /><br />But Dallas seems to be unfamiliar with everyday English usage, whereby discrimination, when condemned in the way under consideration, is usually shorthand for <I>abitrary</I> discrimination. But not allowing minors to vote (selecting qualified surgeons to perform surgery, using licenced electricians to fix the wiring, etc. etc.) is not arbitrary. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="prbebj at gmx dot de">Immanuel Kant</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104292400042937552004-12-28T22:53:00.000-05:002004-12-28T22:53:00.000-05:00I think the quesiton at hand is not if it is wroun...I think the quesiton at hand is not if it is wroung or right, because who can know that for sure? But why people are insacure. If we could all anwser that, maybe we could come to a better understanding of this incurity. And by understanding why we are that way, decide what is better for socity as a whole. I think that if you look to the past. To Rome. You will find that Homosexulity is not good for the whole. It is a selfish act to ask for spechil rights anyway, and when it hurts socity by doing so, the person is Wrounging something larger then him. He is in an act of treason to the state. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?blindsphere.blogspot.com" TITLE="intmathran at yahoo dot com">Chase Whittemore</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104291285164566862004-12-28T22:34:00.000-05:002004-12-28T22:34:00.000-05:00Dallas, I suggest you carefully re-read my previou...Dallas, I suggest you carefully re-read my previous comment, particularly the paragraph beginning: "You seem to be having trouble following the logic of this debate."<br /><br />(Hint: You've completely missed the point about 'pluralism'. It doesn't require explicit benefits, but simply a lack of harm. Further, I'm not using it as a positive argument, but rather a <I>counter</I>-argument. It highlights why <I>your</I> inference from "if everyone were X" is faulty. And that's what your entire argument was based on. You've done nothing to defend that inference, and without it, your argument fails. <I>That's</I> the way it is.)<br /><br />Just an advanced warning: I probably won't bother to reply again unless you actually come up with something new. My previous comments make all the necessary points, and I don't want to waste my time repeating them. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104287293810155572004-12-28T21:28:00.000-05:002004-12-28T21:28:00.000-05:00Here's the way it is, Ricardo. I didn't bring val...Here's the way it is, Ricardo. I didn't bring <I>value</I> and <I>benefit</I> into the discussion. You did - as part of your <I>healthy pluralism</I> contention. If you're going to define <I>healthy pluralism</I> as the protection of behaviors that have <I>value</I> or <I>benefit</I> to society and then rely upon <I>healthy pluralism</I> as a basis for society assuming a neutral stance toward homosexuality, then the burden is upon you to demonstrate that homosexuality fits within the behaviors worthy of <I>healthy pluralism</I> - especially since you have castigated me for ignoring your <I>healthy pluralism</I> argument. If you can't do that, then you might as well throw in the towel, cuz the emptiness of your argument has been exposed.<br /><br />My mentioning of polygamy is especially relevant. <I>Healthy pluralism</I> cannot be some sort of a catch-all that protects all behaviors on the fringes of the bell curve. There must be a standard by which society determines what will be tolerated and what won't be tolerated. The burden is on you to demonstrate why homosexuality should be distinguished from polygamy. Either that or you must admit that polygamy is also worthy, in your estimation, of neutral status. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104282388888251092004-12-28T20:06:00.000-05:002004-12-28T20:06:00.000-05:00> It seems to me one would have to feel pretty ins...> It seems to me one would have to feel pretty insecure about their sexuality to feel 'wronged' by such a trivial event. <br /><br />But to an extent a normal person does feel that way. Maybe a lesbian woman feels the same if a man looks at her in that way. Anyway it is possible to argue that it is irrelevant wether it is a result of insecurity or not . you just have to accept that some people are 'insecure" about their sexuality (whatever that means). <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?geniusnz.blogspot.com" TITLE="spat012 at hotmail dot com">GeniusNZ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104279535802934042004-12-28T19:18:00.000-05:002004-12-28T19:18:00.000-05:00I don't need to show a benefit. If you want to di...I don't need to show a benefit. If you want to discriminate, the onus is on you to show a <I>harm</I> to provide your "rational [sic] basis". The one you've come up with here is based on poor logic, so is not <I>rational</I> at all.<br /><br />"<I>If non-discrimination against homosexuality is justified by healthy pluralism, why wouldn't polygamy be justified on the same ground?</I>"<br /><br />You seem to be having trouble following the logic of this debate. You suggested that we could infer from "If <I>everyone</I> were X then there would be bad consequences" to "X is bad / can be justifiably discriminated against". My point about pluralism is simply to show why that's a bad inference. It's not a positive case for non-discrimination. (I take it non-discrimination is the default position.) Rather, it's a counterargument which shows why your specific argument fails. (This leaves open the possibility that there is some OTHER argument against homosexuality which may fare better.)<br /><br />So polygamy is entirely irrelevant here. (Unless you want to argue something like "if everyone was polygamous the world would explode, therefore polygamy is wrong", in which case YES, the 'pluralism' counter would show why such an inference is a bad one.)<br /><br />As to the more general point of whether polygamy should be allowed, that depends on whether doing so (in the actual world, not the silly "if everyone did it" world) would be detrimental to society or not. If it does no harm, then presumably it should be allowed too. (You seem to be tipping your hand here anyway - if reproduction was really the reason for your anti-gay attitudes, why would you oppose polygamy? See the discussion <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fmarriage-and-childrearing.html%23c110200961979466528">here</A>.)<br /><br />While we're so far off-topic anyway, I might as well respond to Chase:<br /><br />"<I>This is because we all feel wronged when some one of the same sex looks at us in a sexual way.</I>"<br /><br />Er, no. If another guy found me attractive, I'd be flattered, not offended. (At least I think so... it's never actually happened so I suppose I can't be <I>sure</I> how I'd react.) It seems to me one would have to feel pretty insecure about their sexuality to feel 'wronged' by such a trivial event. <br /><br />Lastly, feeling "uneasy" or offended does not count as a <B>harm</B>. (Anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to read more <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F06%2Fon-liberty.html">J.S. Mill</A>!) <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104239937622834062004-12-28T08:18:00.000-05:002004-12-28T08:18:00.000-05:00An addendum to the previous post:
If non-discrimi...An addendum to the previous post:<br /><br />If non-discrimination against homosexuality is justified by <I>healthy pluralism</I>, why wouldn't polygamy be justified on the same ground?<br /><br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104233318049457922004-12-28T06:28:00.000-05:002004-12-28T06:28:00.000-05:00Lastly, pollution and global warming are examples ...<I>Lastly, pollution and global warming are examples of collective action problems (like the famous 'prisoners dilemma'), so we can justifiably appeal to 'duty' to try to overcome them. This is not the case in a healthy pluralism, however, where there is no need to get everyone to act in the exact same way. This is the point I've been making all along. Frankly, I'm getting sick of having to repeat myself.</I>Your <I>healthy pluralism</I> argument, as I understand it, boils down to this:<br /><br /><br /><I>But a strict adherence to universality neglects the value of individual differences and the benefits of specialization. Things will work out just fine if we accept the current diversity of preferences, and let people pursue their own ends as they see fit.</I>I have not, and I do not, argue that society should take steps to "stamp out" homosexuality - to enforce universal heterosexuality. My basic contention has consistently been that a rational basis exists for discrimination - that one may reasonably conclude that it is within the bounds of propriety to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.<br /><br />You have failed to explain how the "individual difference" of homosexuality has "value." You have failed to explain how "specialization" in homosexuality has "benefit." If homosexuality isn't "valuable" or "beneficial" to society in some significant manner, then the "pluralism" justification amounts to nothing more than a narcissistic contention that "anything goes" or "I am different; therefore, you must leave me alone and allow me to do what I want to do without any social consequences." <br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104204227675092012004-12-27T22:23:00.000-05:002004-12-27T22:23:00.000-05:00"you have already implicitly admitted that it migh..."<I>you have already implicitly admitted that it might become [a] problem</I>"<br /><br />Not at all. My point was that even if we grant <I>for the sake of argument</I> that universal homosexuality would be a bad thing, it's still no problem for us. And - to answer your current point - nor will it ever be, because universal homosexuality will never come to pass. (Seriously, do you think straight people will suddenly turn gay if the State doesn't treat us with favouritism?) So there's no need at all to take 'precautions' against it.<br /><br />"<I>If a behavior might become a problem, it necessarily follows that society has a rational basis for discouraging that behavior.</I>"<br /><br />Homosexuality 'might' become a problem in the exact same sense that teaching 'might' become a problem. That is to say, it is an extremely weak sense of 'might', which isn't the least bit relevant to making decisions in the actual world. So, depending on how strong a sense of 'might' you had in mind, either the general rule quoted above is false, or the claim that "homosexuality might become a problem" is false.<br /><br />Lastly, pollution and global warming are examples of collective action problems (like the famous 'prisoners dilemma'), so we can justifiably appeal to 'duty' to try to overcome them. This is not the case in a healthy pluralism, however, where there is no need to get everyone to act in the exact same way. This is the point I've been making all along. Frankly, I'm getting sick of having to repeat myself. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104202473439995852004-12-27T21:54:00.000-05:002004-12-27T21:54:00.000-05:00Homosexuality doesn't do any harm, so there's no r...<I>Homosexuality doesn't do any harm, so there's no rational basis to discriminate against it.</I> <br /><br />The problem with this position, of course, is that you have already implicitly admitted that it might become problem. This was implicit in your assuming the stance that a <I>moderately sized</I> population was consistent with society's best interests.<br /><br />If a behavior <I>might</I> become a problem, it necessarily follows that society has a rational basis for discouraging that behavior.<br /><br />As in the case of numerous other behaviors that are discouraged without outright prohibition, such as measures to abate emissions asserted to cause global warming, where advocates explicitly rely upon the <I>precautionary principle</I> as basis for discrimination against emitters.<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104200753104549192004-12-27T21:25:00.000-05:002004-12-27T21:25:00.000-05:00"Homosexuality doesn't do any harm" rather then gi..."Homosexuality doesn't do any harm" rather then giveing us more people to worry about and more people to think about, it does alot. <br /><br />Homosexuality breeds uneasyness in the hearts of many. This is because we all feel wronged when some one of the same sex looks at us in a sexual way. Don't denie it. I have friends that are more "Out of the colest" then most of you are most likely willing to admit. They have all told me that it is weird when the other checks them out. But since i know someone on the other end of this neverending string of wires, is going to disagree with me. Most likely being a gay indivual them selfs, i will just say this. Fighting over this is stupid. We are all, most likely, set in our ways, no one here is going to say any thing that is going to change anothers mind. I just ask that you all think about the moarl lines of this. <br /><br />History is a great thing to learn from. Look at rome, why did it fall. Moral corruption. Do we want to see the USA broken in 20 years cause a small group of people ACTED there soul away.<br /><br />Chase Whittemore <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?blindsphere.blogspot.com" TITLE="intmathran at yahoo dot com">Chase Whittemore</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104197218667994112004-12-27T20:26:00.000-05:002004-12-27T20:26:00.000-05:00"Please explain how it serves society's interests ..."<I>Please explain how it serves society's interests to have a moderately sized homosexual population.</I>"<br /><br />I said it was <B>consistent</B> with society's interests. Homosexuality doesn't do any harm, so there's no rational basis to discriminate against it. <br /><br />You were arguing it was harmful because if <I>everyone</I> were gay there would be bad consequences. But as we've repeatedly demonstrated (and you've repeatedly ignored), that's simply not a valid inference.<br /><br />Now, if (contrary to fact) there was a massive shortage of babies, then it might be appropriate for the state to encourage people - whether gay or straight - to reproduce. Like I said in the main post, we could meaningfully speak of a 'reproductive duty'. (In our present situation, however, there is no need and therefore no such duty.) <br /><br /><I>Even then</I> (and recall the real world is nowhere near this situation anyway), I don't think it would be appropriate to discriminate against all homosexuals. Rather, we might discriminate against those who failed to meet their reproductive obligations - again, whether they were gay or straight is irrelevant here.<br /><br />So even if we consider the 'worst case scenario' of a world entirely divorced from our own, your argument still doesn't really work. And it <I>certainly</I> doesn't work in the actual world, because of the <B>'healthy pluralism'</B> issue you keep refusing to address.  <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104191026236015312004-12-27T18:43:00.000-05:002004-12-27T18:43:00.000-05:00The last post was by me. I forgot to attach the p...The last post was by me. I forgot to attach the personal information before hitting "post." <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104186964005640442004-12-27T17:36:00.000-05:002004-12-27T17:36:00.000-05:00Questions relating to homosexuality are questions ...<I>Questions relating to homosexuality are questions of individual right, and individual rights are not subject to majority vote. We do not permit, or at least we should not permit, the majority to impose its religion on the minority, or to censor the expressions of the minority. The same principle applies here.</I>I'm not questioning the right of people to practice consensual sexual behaviors of their own choosing in privacy. The issue is whether there is a rational basis for discriminating against homosexuality. (The manner of discrimination is a different issue.)<br /><br /><br /><I>If everyone always practiced abstinence, the species would become extinct. Therefore no one should practice abstinence.</I>I have not said that people should not engage in homosexual behaviors. For that reason, alone, this analogy fails. Your other ones fail for the same reason. <br /><br />My point, again, is that a rational basis exists for discrimination against homosexuality. The basis is: homosexuality does not serve the long-term interests of society. Perhaps you would like to attempt to offer an explanation as to how homosexuality serves society's long-term interests?<br /><br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104162377529336072004-12-27T10:46:00.000-05:002004-12-27T10:46:00.000-05:00"questions relating to homosexuality are political..."questions relating to homosexuality are political questions to be resolved by majority vote"<br /><br />No, they are not. Questions relating to homosexuality are questions of individual right, and individual rights are not subject to majority vote. We do not permit, or at least we should not permit, the majority to impose its religion on the minority, or to censor the expressions of the minority. The same principle applies here.<br /><br />As to the question of professions versus sexual orientation, you are right that doctors, teachers, and accountants all do valuable work, while homosexuals do not. A slight correction of the analogy is in order:<br /><br />If everyone always used birth control, the species would become extinct. Therefore no one should use birth control.<br /><br />If everyone always practiced oral sex, the species would become extinct. Therefore no one should practice oral sex.<br /><br />If everyone always practiced abstinence, the species would become extinct. Therefore no one should practice abstinence.<br /><br />The key is that, like all of these practices, homosexuality cannot be viewed as a serious threat to the continuance of the species, even in principle. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.positiveliberty.com" TITLE="jason at positiveliberty dot com">Jason Kuznicki</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104156929242867942004-12-27T09:15:00.000-05:002004-12-27T09:15:00.000-05:00Having a moderately sized homosexual population is...<I>Having a moderately sized homosexual population is entirely consistent with the best interests of human society.</I>This isn't a self-evident proposition. Please explain how it serves society's interests to have a moderately sized homosexual population.<br /><br />Does your proposition mean that it would be proper to discriminate against homosexuals if that population became "too large"? How many would be too many? If the population became too large, how would we stem further growth in the size of the population?  <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104151099855293852004-12-27T07:38:00.000-05:002004-12-27T07:38:00.000-05:00Like Jason said, "If everyone was a teacher, the s...<I>Like Jason said, "If everyone was a teacher, the species would become extinct." Do you think it is rational to discriminate against teachers? Do they somehow "not serve the long-term interests of society"? Your logic simply doesn't work.</I> <br />Educators, physicians, and accountants fall within a class we call "professions" - those who perform specialized work deemed useful to society. It does not serve our purposes to discriminate against those performing useful work. [Nonetheless, we do it all the time by the imposition of a progressive income tax structure.]<br /><br />Quite obviously, "homosexual" does not fall within the same class. You are equating "sexual orientation" with "labor" - a gross error of categorizaton. I fail to see how the counterargument advances the discussion.<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104112663853049772004-12-26T20:57:00.000-05:002004-12-26T20:57:00.000-05:00Dallas, you're failing to engage our counterargume...Dallas, you're failing to engage our counterarguments. (Did you even read my post?) Healthy pluralism is the key here. <br /><br />Having a moderately sized homosexual population is entirely consistent with the best interests of human society.<br /><br />Your entire argument rests on the idea that we can infer "X is bad" from "If <I>everyone</I> were X then there would be bad consequences". But that's a ridiculous inference.<br /><br />Like Jason said, "If everyone was a teacher, the species would become extinct." Do you think it is rational to discriminate against teachers? Do they somehow "not serve the long-term interests of society"? Your logic simply doesn't work. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1104111975486165452004-12-26T20:46:00.000-05:002004-12-26T20:46:00.000-05:001. Discrimination is discrimination however you h...1. <I>Discrimination is discrimination however you hedge your language.</I>But, we <I>discriminate</I> all the time. E.g., we don't allow minors to vote (even though many of them are much more knowledgeable than many adults). <br /><br />2. I'm not suggesting it would be rational to discriminate against people on the basis of their <I>reproductive potential</I>. Many, if not most, homosexuals are fertile. I'm suggesting it's rational to discriminate against homosexuality because it does not serve the long-term interests of society.  <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Freproductive-duty.html" TITLE="ems at schulzemcdonald dot com">Dallas</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com