To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8103
8102  |  8104
Subject: 
Re: Christian morality (cont)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:38:05 GMT
Viewed: 
477 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
Dave, I don't think this has any bearing on Steve's original statement,
which was that
...
The male animal bearing a fetus that you speak of was not a result of
homosexual sex, nor could it have been. Since homosexual sex can only
involve just eggs or just sperms, ain't no way it's going to result in an
egg and a sperm getting together.

Actually, I think it was quite on topic. Dave! was just trying to expose the
precise line at which point it becomes immoral according to the proposed
moral law. For example, IF (big if) homosexual sex could produce a child,
would it then be moral? I assume the answer is yes. Hence, IF (big if)
science can produce a way wherein homosexual sex could produce a child,
would it then be moral? IF (smaller if) a male born with a genetic defect
wherein he had no ability to reproduce, is it moral for him to have sex,
seeing as how God made him in such a way that he could not? Is that not why
homosexual sex is immoral? IF (wierd if) a hermaphrodite were born and its
male organ removed, such that it COULD have worked had medicine not
intervened, is it moral for that person to have homosexual sex with a woman?

And I think the point that Dave! was making was that science is getting to
that big if where homosexual components (two sperm or two eggs-- I dunno, I
am uninformed on such research) could produce a child. Hence, perhaps such
an if is no longer such a stretch.

DaveE



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Christian morality (cont)
 
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) a (...) Dave, I don't think this has any bearing on Steve's original statement, which was that (...) The male animal bearing a fetus that you speak of was not a result of homosexual sex, nor could it have (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

34 Messages in This Thread:












Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR