Wisdom and Cheese (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, December 03, 2011, 21:53 (4739 days ago) @ dhw

the idea of “intended purpose” doesn’t apply. Evolution has resulted in sex for its own sake, and that’s it. But even from your theist standpoint, we run into difficulties. If the purpose of sex is reproduction, why didn’t your god limit the “on heat” period as he did with many of our fellow animals?

Whoa!.. slow down. I don't think I am the one making assumptions here. I didn't even begin to discuss sex for pleasure or anything of the sort. As for what I stated being contradictory, I disagree. If the first commandment was to "be fruitful and multiply, filling the Earth" then ENJOYING sex would be great motivation for it! However, biologically even you can not argue that, physically, mechanically, sex was not intended for reproduction.

DHW

However, if your God disapproved, why did he make homosexuality so common among our fellow creatures? There are hundreds of species that indulge, including sheep, giraffes, bonobos, bison, elephants, and even birds like penguins and pigeons.

Again, THIS was exactly my point. Far from being a matter of approval, understanding of the word as 'functional' vs. 'non-functional' bears no connotation of approval or disapproval, or morality at all. It simply says you won't get knocked up if you aren't having sex with a member of the opposite sex of the same species. Biologically that is a very accurate statement.

One of my best friends is a half-black - half-korean homosexual raissed by a white father in the deep south east of the U.S. I assure you no prejudice was meant by the statement, but whether anyone likes it or not, the simple fact is, if everyone was gay the species would be dead in a generation. That's not prejudice, its simple biological imperative. M + F = baby... No other combination is 'functional'.

You are bringing morality into it, which is precisely what I was saying proper understanding of the words avoids.

DHW

‘functional/dysfunctional’ may help us to understand some cases, but what is our aim here? In what way is raping a child “dysfunctional”, other than through your dubious restriction of sex to reproductive purposes? And if your purpose is not to establish moral criteria, what is it?

Since you insist on trying to twist this back to morality vs. 'functional & dysfunctional', rape of any sort is not functional because a) it is normally a by product of a brain dysfunction,(some form of sociopathy or other mental disorder) and b) it precludes the proper care of the offspring and C) if the rape is also violent it can/will damage the mother potentially endangering the life of the mother and the child. Rape of a child is not functional because by definition a child is prepubescent and incapable of reproduction. Now, personally, I am like you in that my morality says that harming others is wrong. There is a difference between morality and functionality though.

If you would be so kind for a moment as to stop, and actually look at what I am saying, you will find that none of these arguments are of any moment. You have often argued that the bible or other religions are not needed for development of a moral code. So why should every statement in the bible be about this moral code that it doesn't need to define? Everything you have talked about could be summed up under the 'golden rule', really. That is a moral imperative, and might be considered THE moral imperative. But you have no problem with science saying "If we breed a duck and a badger, we don't get a platypus, in fact, we don't get anything at all", yet you argue when I say "Two men having sex will not produce a baby." Neither of those statement discuss the morality of it all. Saying that it isn't normal for a badger to have sex with a duck doesn't imply anything is wrong with it, simply that, statistically, it is less likely than a male and female badger mating. Someone being gay is statistically less likely than someone being Hetero. I don't care or pass judgement one way or the other, but until the numbers say that there are fewer hetero's than homosexuals, heterosexuality can be considered the norm.

My only purpose is clarity of understanding. There is a vast gulf between functional/dysfunctional and a moral code.

Your original motive of “curiosity” is fine with me. However, given the choice, I would say it’s infinitely more important that we should try to gain an accurate understanding of people who now live in the same world as us but have “a different understanding of reality”. The result of not doing so may be catastrophic.

You ever consider that breaking the translation barrier of the bible, which many people consider the gospel truth of "god", might go a long way to generating some tolerance and understanding in the world? People would be much more likely to believe that the translator messed up than they would believing that their religions intentionally misled them.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.