Dekusta
New member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2015
- Messages
- 48
- Location
- Goiânia
- Basic Beliefs
- Find out what morality is should be our concern. If we are wrong, then we have to stop.
It's not incoherent. If I put oranges and apples under the same label "orapples", that is not incoherent, either.
I'm not sure how to clarify my previous posts without making them excessively long, and that would take considerable time. What part of the reasoning in my previous post you don't understand?
No, but he still has not presented the evidence in question, and that's enough of an objection.Dekusta said:There is plenty of literature discussing the link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but suppose there is a link (in the sense that they have a similar cause or a phenomenon that results on attraction to either children or adults ). Would his argument be sound?
Still, the answer is no: Suppose there are two genes, A and B. A gives you blue yes, and 5% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness. B gives you brown eyes, and 1% of the times, it gives you nearsightedness (I'm matching his argument; genes wouldn't be like that). In the rest of the cases, sight is fine. Are brown eyes better than blue eyes? No, even if gene B is better (suppose no other genes give you blue eyes, etc.), blue eyes are not per se worse. You could still say blue eyes are overall worse in the sense that a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness, but that "overall worse" is just shorthand for "a greater percentage of people with blue eyes have nearsightedness", and would not say anything about the trait about blue-eyed people without nearsightedness.
Moreover, even in that case, there would be no good reason to discriminate against people with nearsightedness.
Let me put it in a different way. Do you know of a trait that is strongly associated with child molestation? Maleness.
Indeed, males are grossly overrepresented among child molesters - and among rapists in general, bank robbers, spouse beaters, serial killers, assassins for hire, and so on.
Suppose there is at least one common cause: say, having XY chromosomes.
Would then maleness be inferior?
If so, what kind of discrimination against males would that afford?
Incidentally, and regardless of the cause, you could ask the Christian: Two couples want to adopt a baby: a man and his wife, and a woman and his wife. Let's consider the odds of child molestation. Who should have a preference for adoption?
That sounds like a good counter-argument. "The development of male sexuality is more likely to result in pedophilia than the development of female sexuality, therefore female sexuality is better than male sexuality".
An objetcion would be that both male and female sexuality development are not entirely different, because both of them lead to the same things (either bisexuality or homo/heterosexuality, and many others). The difference between them may occur because of the differences between the male and female bodies, and is not a difference "in the sexuality itself", as it is with male homosexuality and male heterosexuality.
But I'm not sure this is a good reason to reject your argument, since the claim could change from "male sexuality" to the male body. In other words, "the development of a male body is more likely to result in a disorder of sexuality than the development of a female body, therefore female bodies are superior". I think it would be hard for him to bite the bullet in this case, but perhaps he could appeal for other aspects of the male and female bodies to show that, despite using the same logic as his argument for the superiority of heterosexuality, the conclusion that "female bodies are superior" is false.
Still, the term "difference in the sexuality itself" seems difficult to define. Certainly, homosexuality in females and homosexuality in males are different, but they are both "same-sex attraction". However, heterosexuality and homosexuality are different because one is "same-sex attraction" while the other is not. I'm still not sure if this is a relevant point at all.