Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Silent_One]

antlers wrote:

So you have no problem with homosexual relationships among the sterile? What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners? Is their relationship "wrong"?

What do you mean "genetically incompatible"?

 

[kyleb]

genetically incompatible.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So you have no problem with homosexual relationships among the sterile?

Sigh. Yes, I do have a problem with it.

Again, Read the bottom post on page 16. If you don't see the explanation in that post, ask again and I'll spell it out.

What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners? Is their relationship "wrong"?

Note that you should ask this question to Natoma as well.

You have to define "genetic incomaptibility" though. So my answer is, "it depends." For example: is genetic incompatibility one that results in "less than perfect" offspring? (Downs Syndrome, or some genetic physical affliction?) An incompatibility that results in the inability to concieve a child? (Have an egg actually fertilize and at least begin the gestation process). One that results in the inability to actually carry a child to term and birth it?

Somewhere, you have to draw a line between what is and isn't "genetically compatible." And we'll probably all draw different lines. And we'll all probably spinkle in concepts like "prior knowledge of", and "intent" as well, to try and round out apparent inconsistencies in our position.

For incest, for example: If two adopted individuals meet and have a relationship, get married, have kids...and then die before ever finding out that they were genetically brother and sister, was that particular relationship immoral?

Is it immoral for couples to not test to find out if they have a high probability for a genetic birth defect before attempting to have a child? It is by Natomas currently stated definition, but I'm not sure he actually believes that. These are all valid questions, and challenge us on our moral standing. That's not a bad thing. It becomes bad when one demands someone else's moral code be held to impossible idealistic standards, particularly when their own code does not meat the same.

When it comes to morals, you have an idealistic approach on one end of the spectrum (all things are black and white), or a completely pragmatic approach on the other end. (All things are situational). Most commonly, we all are somehwere in the middle: moral code based on black and white concepts, but challenged and qualified with situational examples -- most commonly required when 'balck and white' moral ideals come into conflict with one another given specific circumstances.

My "black and white" concept concerning sexual relationships relates to the generation of offspring. (Ability to equals good, inability equals bad).
And when challenged to explain apparent contradictions, I have clarified and qualified along the way.

Natoma's "black and white" concept concerning having children, relates to the suffering / problems of children. (Problems=bad, no problems = good). He is also clarifying along the way...but just refusing to admit it.

 

[Silent_One]

Kyle wrote:

genetically incompatible.

Well Kyle I know what genetically means, and I know what incompatable means. The words themselves mean nothing by themselves.

Antlers wrote - "What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners?" and I want to know what people can have childern with other people but are genetically incompatible with their partners, besides homosexuals, whom antlers excludes. What is the genetically incompatiblity he refers too?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well Kyle I know what genetically means, and I know what incompatable means. The words themselves mean nothing by themselves.

Precisely. And the difference between how we could define "genetically incompatible" would probably be the difference in seeing a viewpoint as consistent or inconsistent.

 

[Vince]

That must mean your basis is fundamentally flawed...I believe is the way you put it.

Nothing new. Legion and I have been discussing this very point. Unfortunatly Natoma has totally ignored the core of my questions/issues (aswell as Legions) and instead tells to look at page 14 - which doesn't cover it and is useless anyway to the following topics he needs to explain.

But, think of it this way - would you expect him to basically tell us his way of life is fallicious?

 

[horvendile]

I've been sort of following this discussion (probably not reading every single post though), and while common sense dictates that I should take cover, I distrust common sense!

Right now I am not trying to make a point but to get things clear for myself.
My understanding is that you (you know who you are ) find homosexuality morally objectionable. I'm not talking about some sort of homosexual lifestyle, but homosexuality itself.
Have I understood that correctly?

Furthermore, one premise I find reasonable is that in order to be held morally responsible for something you should have had the possibility to have influence over that something; in other words, you should have a choice. That premise is not totally without its problems, but it's a pretty good baseline.

If the answer to my first question was yes, and you find the premise above reasonable, you should also believe that homosexuality is something that is chosen or at least can be un-chosen. Is that correct?

If the answers to my questions can be found earlier in the discussion, I apologise for missing that. It's 19 pages...

 

[notAFanB]

Right now I am not trying to make a point but to get things clear for myself.
My understanding is that you (you know who you are ) find homosexuality morally objectionable.

I think the point some of us are aiming at is that is quirk in the system(nature) which had established the process for human reproduction. I don't think anyone here are discussing the 'morals' of homosexuality here, at least not in detial.

 

[Xmas]

My "black and white" concept concerning sexual relationships relates to the generation of offspring. (Ability to equals good, inability equals bad).

Then what do you think is worse, the inability to have children or contraception?

 

[MfA]

This isnt about nature. Nature recognizes no right or wrong, it may recognizes survival ... but we are human and a lot of what species needed for survival in the past does not apply to us, if need be we can all go gay and still survive if we want to.

This is about morals, and rationalization of those morals by trying to mask their predominantely religious nature with some natural "laws". This is useless, if you are religious and you need to rationalize your god's commandments then maybe you should reconsider your religion ... and if you think those rationalizations will help convince anyone else you are deluding yourself.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

...if you are religious and you need to rationalize your god's commandments then maybe you should reconsider your religion ...

And if you are "not religious" and you need to rationalize your own moral code, you should reconsider that as well. Point?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My understanding is that you (you know who you are ) find homosexuality morally objectionable. I'm not talking about some sort of homosexual lifestyle, but homosexuality itself.
Have I understood that correctly?

Correct. (Speaking for myself only.)

Furthermore, one premise I find reasonable is that in order to be held morally responsible for something you should have had the possibility to have influence over that something; in other words, you should have a choice. That premise is not totally without its problems, but it's a pretty good baseline.

I rasied that premise to make a point...that such possibilites are indeed valid ones to raise. These types of possibilities make "rationalizing" morals difficult and non scientific. Not that the exercise isn't worthwile.

If the answer to my first question was yes, and you find the premise above reasonable, you should also believe that homosexuality is something that is chosen or at least can be un-chosen. Is that correct?

Whether or not homosexuality is "chosen" or not is irrelevant to me. AFAIK, homosexuals claim both. (Some say that's "just the way they are", some say they chose one lifestyle, switched to a different one, etc.)

The above premise is a reasonable one to make, but not necessary IMO.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Then what do you think is worse, the inability to have children or contraception?

Again, my answer is "it depends." It depends on how contraception is approached. Is it approached from the standpoint of "I never want to have kids, and I never want to pass my genes on, just because I don't want to, even though I could bring a child into this world and reasonably support him....but I still want to have sex", then that is in effect the inability to have children.

To me, that's selfish. And again, I do separate sexual acts from sexual relationships. And we're really getting away from the core question, which is the morality of specific relationships. To be clear, I don't view homosexual sex as immoral. It's sexual realtionship between same-sex partners that I object to.

 

[Natoma]

We have "problems" because of the societal prejudices Joe. That is where all of the pressure comes from. Society.

So, you speak for all homosexuals / transgenders / bisexuals?

Obviously not. There are some homosexuals/transgenders/bisexuals who come out without any issue because the families they live in have no problem with their sexuality and make it a point to let that be known. But the majority of homosexuals/transgenders/bisexuals still face severe discrimination in the family, in schools, and in society in general.

Most of us know what orientation we are, but try to suppress it and live "normal" heterosexual lives because we're afraid of what society will do. Be it lose a job, lose a home, lose one's family, etc.

Most of you?

Most certainly. I didn't know what orientation I was until I looked it up in a book. Then I knew. Some people know early on because they just know, due to slurs such as "faggot," "butt pirate," etc. I never really heard any of those epithets so frankly I had no clue "what" I was, until my early teen years.

I certainly knew I didn't like girls. But I didn't know what liking guys meant.

I know for instance in my case, I lived in utter terror that I'd be kicked out of my mom's home, and that I'd lose my family. Not to mention the fact that I used to feel I'd bring shame upon our family name by coming out.

Where did all these psychological issues come from? Society.

But it's OK for "your society" to set some bar for intellect as being "acceptable?"

You still haven't answered why someone of lower intellect doesn't deserve a chance.

First off I never stated that someone of lower intellect doesn't deserve a chance. I said that if the parents know that their child has a higher probability of having some disease that could incapacitate them mentally or physically, they should take the best pre-natal and neo-natal care they can provide.

To know that you and your wife have a high propensity for Down Syndrome should clue you into getting tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome. If you don't do that and say you'll just leave it up to chance, then I would consider that irresponsible because you are potentially saddling your child with physical and/or mental disabilities that otherwise it would not need to experience.

Huh? I stated exactly what my moral standard was, based on my humanistic principles. No further qualification is required.

Um, yes it was. You said geneitc abnormalities, and then you qualified that by excluding genetic "abnormalites" that in your opinion, only cause problems because of social pressure.

That's called a qualification.

First off, *you* stated genetic abnormalities. I kept that language from your post merely to keep it within the flow when answering your post. I do not believe homosexuality is a genetic abnormality anymore than I believe dark skin color is a genetic abnormality. I believe they are both merely variations on a theme. Homosexuality is a sexual variation while dark skin color is a pigment variation.

Now, excluding your obviously biased words, there is no qualification required.

Each human being should be born as healthy as possible so they can live their lives to the fullest.

Why not, each human being should be born in whatever state, and then free to live his life to the fullest of his ability?

Because we have the ability to try and help each human being be as good as they can possibly be. Now that is not saying we should enhance intelligence of bone structure or musculature. However, we should make sure that there are no abnormalities such as Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Retina Pigmentosa, Asthma, etc etc etc, present that would hinder that child's ability to be as good as they can be.

It is no different that the steps taken today to correct problems in the womb. Spina Bifida for example can be surgically corrected while the child is in the womb, thus allowing that child a normal development. Congenital Heart Defects can also be corrected in the womb as well.

By your logic, we should let a child with Spina Bifida be born and try and live their life as well as they can with that disability. Or let that heart defect child be born with no corrections, and live as long as they can and to the best of their ability.

Damn Joe I always suspected you were heartless, but this is ridiculous.

Free from Down's Syndrome which would lower their intellectual potential.

And "intellectual potential" is all that humans have to offer? Are you that shallow? What about LOVE. Shouldn't someone of lower intellect be free to love others, and have others love him in return?

Firstly that was the first statement of my point. With regard to intellect *only*, they should be given as much of a chance to develop normally as possible. Obviously I'm not stating that a mentally disabled child cannot be loving. But would it not have been better for that child and his/her parents and family if he/she could have been born without that disability?

And don't give me that indignant attitude of yours because if you honestly don't believe children should be given every chance to develop with a healthy mind and body, you don't deserve children. Frankly your son is lucky he was born healthy because if this negligent attitude of yours is anything to go by, you'd have let him come out deformed or psychologically retarded, even if you had a chance to correct the problems before birth.

Free from Cystic Fibrosis or Muscular Dystrophy or Spina Bifida which would lower their life span and cause great physical pain.

So a lower life span means not deserving of life at all? Again, (another unanswered question from you) where do you draw the line?

Again, I *never* stated that a lower life span, or a life full of pain is not deserving of life at all. I said that the *parents* should take every possible precaution within their power to make sure their child is born healthy. If even after everything the parents did, the child still was born with abnormalities, then so be it. The parents can do whatever they can to love that child and care for it for as long as the child lives and needs care.

For shits and giggles though, lets take this out to today's technology. Next time you have a child, don't let your wife go through pre-natal care. Don't do anything out of the ordinary. Don't do any tests whatsoever to check for any possible deformities or genetic defects that could hinder the life of the child. Let your child be born naturally, as it was decades ago before all of our technology allowed us to intervene inside the womb.

If your child needs to be born a trimester premature, don't put it in an incubation chamber. Just let it live in the crib. If it dies, it dies. Don't do anything within your power to help that child live a healthy life.

What about dwarfs? They don't have the physical strength or characteristics of "normal" people. They certainly will not have all the same opportunities as "normal" people. Should we spare them as well?

Uhm hello. Eventually we will have the technology to stop dwarfism. Duh.

And it's not about the height directly, in terms of just being 4 feet tall. That is society's defect to deal with, wrt stares and discrimination against Dwarfs.

No, dwarfs generally have more physical problems to deal with such as incorrectly sized internal organs, poorer health (in general), and other issues. There are some dwarfs that are healthy however and lead normal lives. But quite a few experience physical problems due to their organs being compressed in their shortened bodies.

At what point does enduring "physical pain" outweigh having at a life at all? These are all questions that need qualification from you.

The continuation of your fallacious assumption, which I addressed above.

And yet there was a eugenics movement in the latter half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century in the United States (which btw greatly influenced Hitler's own beliefs on the races) that stated that blacks were inherently inferior, and their skin color was an instance of that inferiority.

And your point, besides another lesson on black oppression? So one line of belief back then was that blacks were in fact "not up to the full potential of "normal" people." Right?"

So then that would give "humansists" such as youself the right to try and prevent blacks from reproducing.

As I have stated above, skin color is a variation. Just as sexuality is a variation. Cystic Fibrosis is an abnormality. Congenital Heart Defects are an abnormality. Muscular Dystrophy is an abnormality.

There would be no reason to try and prevent black people from reproducing. It would be about changing *society*, which is what occurred.

Again, you are making a circular argument. You reserve the moral right to not bring "problem" children into the world....but that means you have to define what a "problem child" is.

The continuation of a fallacious line of argumentation that you *assumed* without reading fully. Nggalai tried to inform you to this and you just disregarded it yet again.

Some consider homosexuality a genetic disorder. You say it's genetically linked, but since it doesn't inhibit their "ability to live life to the fullest" claim it's not a disorder. What if I say by definition, they can't live life to the fullest, because they can't pass on their combined genes with their mate of choice.

What? There's more to life that homosexuals can offer than just offspring with the person they love? Great. But somehow, a downs syndrome child doesn't offer enough?

As I said before. Parents should take every precaution available to them to make sure their child is born healthy in mind and body. This is a simple concept. You're a parent. I would assume that you should know this. But if you don't, heaven help your next child if it has problems while in the womb.

If you know that you have a high probability to pass on Down Syndrome and you don't do anything to try and prevent your child from getting Down Syndrome, then yes, I believe that is immoral, because you knowingly give your child an intellectual handicap.

What does an intellectual handicap have to do with living life? Is everyone on this planet born with the same inherent mental and physical capacity? Is intellectual capacity required to have a meanigful life? Exactly what IQ, Natoma, is required to NOT have an intellectual handicap.

Natoma, you really are cold and heartless, aren't you.

You're really dense. Let me spell it out for you so you can understand it a smidge better.

1) I believe that parents should take every precaution to make sure their child is born healthy in mind and body.

2) I believe that if parents do not take every precaution they can think of to make sure their child is born healthy in mind and body, they have failed that child in that respect.

3) I believe that after the child is born, the parents need to do everything within their means to care for that child, regardless of mental or physical deformity.

4) I do not believe that everyone is born with the same level of intelligence. I am not as intelligent as Albert Einstein, or Newton, or any other super intelligent person you can think of. However, I wasn't born with a genetic defect or physical abnormality that caused my intelligence to dip into the mental retardation range, i.e. Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida. I began life with no physical or mental problems. I believe that every baby should have the chance to be born without physical or mental problems.

How they use their talents, intelligence, gifts, etc and what they do from there is up to their parents and themselves.

Homosexuality however is not physically or mentally disabling, when you remove society's prejudices from the picture.

According to you it's not. According to me, being homosexual has the physical "disabler" of not physically being able to pass on your genes with the person you love.

Why is that any less of a "limitation" than lower intelligence of downs syndrome?

Because homosexuals are physically capable of having children. Not with each other, but certainly the physical tools are there. Being in a relationship to have a child is a *societal* qualifier Joe. That is *society's* problem.

I have been completely consistent.

Yes, aside from all those holes and instances of inconsistency.

Maybe if you would stop creating your own tangents and acting as if I was the one who created it, then rebutting that tangent as if I made that point (such as saying that I said that the mentally and/or physically disabled don't deserve to live. ), we wouldn't have these "inconsistency" problems you keep bringing up.

I see you haven't answered one of the questions posed before, and now I'd like to explore it.

It's two days before a baby is due to be born. At that time, it is discovered to have Downs Syndrome. You have 3 options:

1) Abort the baby at 8 months and 27 days.
2) Kill the baby upon birth
3) Give birth, and raise the child so it may live to the fullest of it's ability

What is the "morally right" thing to do? Only options 1 or 2 will prevent this child from "suffering from its problems" though life, which is what you claim your moral compass is guided by.

Give birth to the child. You didn't know the baby had Down's Syndrome. You couldn't do anything about it. But it's still your child. I would keep the baby. But that is my personal decision. I would not fault a family for deciding to abort the baby. But I would feel very saddened by it.

As I said before:

Again, I *never* stated that a lower life span, or a life full of pain is not deserving of life at all. I said that the *parents* should take every possible precaution within their power to make sure their child is born healthy. If even after everything the parents did, the child still was born with abnormalities, then so be it. The parents can do whatever they can to love that child and care for it for as long as the child lives and needs care.

This can't be that difficult to comprehend. I'm not speaking another language here.

 

[horvendile]

Ouch! This debate grows faster than I can keep up with!

Furthermore, one premise I find reasonable is that in order to be held morally responsible for something you should have had the possibility to have influence over that something; in other words, you should have a choice. That premise is not totally without its problems, but it's a pretty good baseline.

I rasied that premise to make a point...that such possibilites are indeed valid ones to raise. These types of possibilities make "rationalizing" morals difficult and non scientific. Not that the exercise isn't worthwile.

I don't quite understand your answer, probably because I worded the question awkwardly. If it looked like I was referring to some instance when you yourself brought that premise up, it wasn't my meaning.
What types of possibilities do you think of? The possibility to have influence over ones situation? If so, I don't understand your last sentence.
On the other hand, since you later state that the premise is not necessary, we might as well skip that discussion - not that the exercise wouldn't be worthwile wink, but it should not be necessary for the main topic.

Whether or not homosexuality is "chosen" or not is irrelevant to me.

Forgive me if I am a bit repetitive, but I want to be sure that I understood you correctly.
Since it's irrelevant whether homosexuality is a choice or not, the only conclusion I can come to is that you allow holding people morally responsible for things over which they have no control.
Do I still follow you?

Edit: BTW, I'm going to bed now and so obviously can't respond again until tomorrow.

 

[Natoma]

That must mean your basis is fundamentally flawed...I believe is the way you put it.

Nothing new. Legion and I have been discussing this very point. Unfortunatly Natoma has totally ignored the core of my questions/issues (aswell as Legions) and instead tells to look at page 14 - which doesn't cover it and is useless anyway to the following topics he needs to explain.

But, think of it this way - would you expect him to basically tell us his way of life is fallicious?

Oh please. This is a typical conversation with Vince/Joe/Legion:

Why is the sky blue?

Why is the sky blue?

The sky is blue because of the refractory properties of our atmosphere wrt the sun's rays, as well as the reflection of the light off of the water.

...because...

You haven't answered the question. Why is the sky blue?

You haven't answered the question. Why is the sky blue?

Erm, did you not read my post?

The sky is blue because of the refractory properties of our atmosphere wrt the sun's rays, as well as the reflection of the light off of the water.

... did you not ...

Of course I did not. You're illogical. Illogical!!

...because...

Because what? What the hell are you talking about?

This is ridiculous. You're obviously just trying to duck answering the question. Bah!

:?

:?

See? You and your higher than thou morals. Please. You're so transparent.

A day in the life of trying to hold a conversation with you nincompoops.

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

The reason why I'm against incest is because of the genetic defects that it can cause. However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone. At it's base, incest is a heterosexual construct. Remove the issues of deformity and it becomes just like a "normal" heterosexual relationship.

Natoma wrote:

First off I never stated that someone of lower intellect doesn't deserve a chance. I said that if the parents know that their child has a higher probability of having some disease that could incapacitate them mentally or physically, they should take the best pre-natal and neo-natal care they can provide.

To know that you and your wife have a high propensity for Down Syndrome should clue you into getting tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome. If you don't do that and say you'll just leave it up to chance, then I would consider that irresponsible because you are potentially saddling your child with physical and/or mental disabilities that otherwise it would not need to experience.

So, in one caes (incest) you want the couple sterilized to insure ther could be no children with genetic defects. In the other cases, under your humanistic principles you believe it irresponsible if a couple did not get "tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome". Both have potential genetic risks. Genetic manipulation is too far in the future. The first couple you sterilized. Your inconsistent

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

The reason why I'm against incest is because of the genetic defects that it can cause. However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone. At it's base, incest is a heterosexual construct. Remove the issues of deformity and it becomes just like a "normal" heterosexual relationship.

Natoma wrote:

First off I never stated that someone of lower intellect doesn't deserve a chance. I said that if the parents know that their child has a higher probability of having some disease that could incapacitate them mentally or physically, they should take the best pre-natal and neo-natal care they can provide.

To know that you and your wife have a high propensity for Down Syndrome should clue you into getting tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome. If you don't do that and say you'll just leave it up to chance, then I would consider that irresponsible because you are potentially saddling your child with physical and/or mental disabilities that otherwise it would not need to experience.

So, in one caes (incest) you want the couple sterilized to insure ther could be no children with genetic defects. In the other cases, under your humanistic principles you believe it irresponsible if a couple did not get "tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome". Both have potential genetic risks. Genetic manipulation is too far in the future. The first couple you sterilized. Your inconsistent

I should edit my last post to say Vince/Joe/Legion/Silent_One. God I get so confused with all you knuckleheads.

However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone.

Now right now, we have the ability to correct *some* issues, but not all. All will be far into the future.

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

Natoma wrote:

However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone.

Now right now, we have the ability to correct *some* issues, but not all. All will be far into the future.

So, to be consistent you want to sterilize those couples whom may have the risk of children with Down Syndrome? I mean, let's be fair here. Your words Natoma, you said " if the incestuous couple were sterilized..." and untill such time that genetic manipulation can work, then it would seem you would want to sterilize a lot of potentially at risk couples.....

 

[Natoma]

So, to be consistent you want to sterilize those couples whom may have the risk of children with Down Syndrome?

That was not the only option provided. Couples who may have the risk of children with Down Syndrome can take steps to prevent the passage of that gene today. As I told Joe, even if those steps are not completely successful, they need to try. If it doesn't work and they have the baby, then I believe they should take care of that baby to the best of their ability.

Read the long post I wrote in response to Joe.