Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:14:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1917 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage.
|
You’re “all for” sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in only
certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right?
|
Yes, but neither are you “all for” sex either, unless you are willing to
advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There
is no difference except in degree.
|
This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and
reviled in earlier posts.
As far as incest goes, you have
previously acknowledged that
incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural values.
In so doing, you acknowledge that incest in only wrong within the context of
society as it now exists.
Chris has already observed that the issue is one of informed consent, and I
would add personal preference as a factor. As he pointed out, if a person wants
to copulate with an animal, how exactly does that affect me? One can even posit
scenarios in which the animal’s consent can be verified, so it need not be a
question of force.
Regarding my own sexuality, I draw the line at my personal preference, just like
you do. The difference is that you seek to impose your preference upon others,
and you cloak your preference in the claim that you’re trying to protect
society/culture/family from “erosion.”
| |
It wouldn’t be the same society we have now. I like it the way it is, and I
don’t want to change it. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. You are
going to have to live with it or leave, because nobody wants to change to
accommodate your vision of society.
|
So you are expressly stating that the rights of the minority are subject to the
whim of the majority? If a majority of people decided that Christianity were
primitive, regressive, and societally destructive idolatry, would you be content
to abandon or conceal your worship simply because it conflicts with the way the
majority likes things?
Over the years you’ve made numerous statements (like that one) equating majority
opinion with underlying correctness, and that is also moral relativism.
| |
| |
| |
If you really believed we are animals, you would
notice that this survival strategy is pervasive in nature.
|
Pardon?
|
Many species mate for life. There are good reasons for it other than
bigotted religious ones;-)
|
Many species engage in longterm, committed homosexual relationships, and not for
reasons of simple dominance (as homophobes sometimes suggest). If you’re
advocating the greater animal kingdom as justification for our own social
constructs, then you must accept human homosexual unions as a natural part of
our species, as well.
| |
| |
Why is it human, and not e.g. canine, to
suppress our “animal instincts”?
|
Animals can’t suppress instinct. We are able.
Honestly, I find this equivocation of humans and animals disturbing.
|
Let’s throw out the word “equivocation,” because that implies that some sort of
deception or misleading is going on. Let’s refer instead to the recognition
that humans are part of the animal kingdom, and that arbitrary distinctions
between humans and animals are exactly that.
Honestly, I find the assertion that humans are somehow fundamentally “above”
animals rather disturbing and elitist.
| |
Say the last tiger alive on earth was attacking me and would indeed kill me
if you didn’t kill it first. Would you?
|
If there were no other means to prevent the tiger from killing me, then
certainly I would kill it. In much the same way, I would kill the last other
human on the planet if that human were trying to kill me. Wouldn’t you? What’s
the point of your question?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I realize this and I believe in an absolute morality, but he doesn't. I am trying to appeal to his sensibilities, not mine (which I know he flatly rejects). I am arguing on his turf, as it were. (...) I assume you are talking about when I (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Then we disagree. (...) Yes, but neither are you "all for" sex either, unless you are willing to advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There is no difference except in degree. (...) Of course. Do you have another (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
