Who gave these rules?

Post Reply New Topic

If the psyche can normalize gay sex, I guess all other forms of sex are aesthetically palatable as well. If you'll put your dick in your sister, you'd surely do the same to a sheep. And if you enjoy bestiality, you wouldn't mind having sex with an exhaust muffler, a hole in the ground, a corpse ...

See how this is a regression?

That's pretty much what I thought.

Thirded.

I mean, the kosher laws alone demonstrate all kinds of devine awareness and guidance.
(Yes, I realize the kosher laws aren't mentioned in the quoted passage,
but they are in the same book of Leviticus.)

Last edited by Ragtime on 16 May 2008, 4:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Moses was the messenger. God was the author.

I believe that is a slippery slope.

Unfortunately, no, they're not going to see it.
I know, because I've argued for the exact same concept on this forum, time and time again.
People on WP don't seem to accept the existence of trends they don't like,
particularly if they are implicated in perpetuating them.

Person 1: "You're going to fall off that cliff!"
Person 2: "I don't have to take that from you!"
Person 1: "Look out!"
Person 2: "You're just saying that because you're far away from the cliff. You're biased!"

I know, but I'm compelled to try.

*sighs*

I get that compulsion too. I wonder if it is from God, or not? I sure see nothing gained but the multitude of insults thrown at us.

The issue is where we end up having a problem. Why not say the problem starts with having sex for pleasure? After all, if we say that all pleasurable sex is wrong, then we get all of the perversions too! We really would have to define when the problem is, why it is a problem, and what rule we can set up to avoid the problem. If the gay sex isn't the problem, then why is the sex with the sister a problem? If the sister isn't a problem then why the sheep? So on and so forth.

A hole in the ground? That's disgusting.

Taedium pro semper est. Desistere ex via stulta non possunt.

These are valid questions, but as it stands the point I was making was that slowmutant was committing a classic fallacy. slowmutant wrote that the fact that people "can normalize gay sex" implies that all the other stuff follows. This is not a proper argument. Men evidently have a degree of wiring about where they will and will not "put their dicks" and the universality of incest taboos pretty much indicates that at the very least their close relatives are not generally one of these places. Homosexuality on the other hand is something which has a tendency to (ahem) spring up fairly commonly, implying that there is at least a degree of instinctual bias against the one and for the other.

Even if that argument did not hold, it would still by no means follow that thinking it was okay to sleep with men implied it was okay to do sheep. The argument was clearly invalid.

Shall I deconstruct it further?

Appeal to aesthetics. This is blatantly idiotic because aesthetic plalatability is a human construct and hence the mere truth of the existential "There exist people who find gay sex aesthetically palatable but who do not find incest or other forms so" implies that this is suspect, and the fact that so many people hold the position to the contrary implies the statement is utterly baseless. It is as though he is implying that simply not being hetero is tantamount to having no sexual preferences. Since being hetero cannot be said to be introspectively any more real than not being so, there seems to be no reason a priori to suppose that the mere existence of a preference for men could imply a complete dissolution of aesthetic boundaries in general.

In short, the entire argument is so stupid as to be positively baffling. Your position is certainly debatable, but slowmutant is articulating a blatantly invalid and yet very common argument form among Christian heterosexists.

There are two acceptable alternatives neither of which I have any reason to believe slowmutant favors: either 1) Ask why it is that a line should be drawn however arbitrarily which would correspond to the morally skeptic view I assume you are taking, or 2) Address empirically whether or not permissiveness in homosexuality might imply a tendency toward other "deviant" sexual preferences. Inasmuch as homosexuality remains "deviant" under our societal norms, it would not be surprising that being permissive towards it might seem to imply permissiveness towards other non-standard sexual preferences because it is subverting the status quo, but I see no reason to suppose the impossibility of a society existing in which heterosexuality and homosexuality are considered equally valid while various others are considered taboo, speaking a priori.

It goes along a similar pattern as to what is permissible to be broadcast on TV. Compare the few decades in succession and try telling me that there is no pattern. A is okay, but B isn't. B is similar to A, so B is okay. B is okay, but C isn't...

Moses gave these rules for very good reasons. Namely, in-breeding. The children of Israel would not have looked very good with webbed toes and no chins, and besides, it would also weaken them through genetic defects.

Which makes me wonder, just out of speculation, which of the tribes were the Ashkenazi Jews descnded from? The Ashkenazis are (unfortunately) well known for having the genes for Tay-Sachs disease.

Ah God, more postmodernist twaddle.

"Jews" in general come from the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin.