Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:41:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> 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.
Right. But my thesis is that it is not necessary for an egg and a sperm to
get together for a viable embryo to result. Two sperm carry sufficient
genetic material to complete the needed chromosomes for a viable embryo, as
long as one is carrying X and the other Y, or both are carrying X.
Similarly, two eggs carry sufficient genetic material to create a viable
embryo, although that embyro cannot be male, unless you get a Y from
somewhere else.
> Not that I agree with argument Steve makes (that homosexual sex is immoral)
> based on that fact, still it's a fact.
Steve argues that since homosexual sex can't result in viable offspring
under any circumstances, it's immoral. That's a laughable argument on the
face of it, as you point out, but I'm showing that there are circumstances
in which it can (said circumstances include a great deal of technology, but
so what, humans rule the planet because we can change things about nature
almost at will...), and that undermines the argument without requiring the
examination of how ridiculous it is as a moral basis.
++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
