My initial thought was that, upon a cursory reading of this section, perhaps this was written as an example of how farce and thinly veiled bigotry presented as "logic" may present itself , in educational settings or whichever unfortunate students who were tasked with studying it .... That being said, I doubt I'd be the first to express my opinion that this section on homosexuality and, "logic", was really quite speculative and projected the views and "logic" of the author onto others. Sexuality is indeed a complex matter, and the author does a great job of breaking down some of the ways in which the mind may process those types of thoughts. But as soon as the explanations start throwing around words like "morals" and so on, well, there you've ventured into opinion territory. And you know what they say about a#sholes and opinions. I'm glad I had a good logic professor when I attended school. This guy is pretty wrong headed on a lot of stuff.

Something about you (optional) Skeptical

Hello, mjamie0,

This is to advise you that I have deleted your second posting, namely:

"Honestly, its great that theres been some response here, but the content is suspect as he1l. Some of it feels like its bordering on bigotry at times.
So I would probably blame the source, although in fairness its mostly ok."

The reason I did so was the photo you pasted in there.

Something about you (optional) logician-philosopher

Hello, mjamie0.

In reply to your commentary: it seems that your "good logic professor" sorely misled you about the possibility of logic helping inform us on moral matters.

I suggest you study chapter 7 of my book on David Hume, concerning the is-ought dichotomy:

http://www.thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_1/6a_chapter_07.htm

And if you have the patience, go on and study my book on Volition:

http://www.thelogician.net/4b_volition/4b_vol_contents.htm

Maybe this will help you to distinguish between opinion and knowledge.

Something about you (optional) logician-philosopher

SECTION 1

If there is any reason to believe that the ecology called Mother Nature favors heterosexuality as the only sexual orientation which naturally and efficiently can sustain the human membership in that ecology, then marriage is a male and a female in the deepest and most direct kind of association with one another. Such an association is inherently self-sustaining, that is, marriage is most essentially its own sovereign society (qualifications to these words in the fifth, or final, section of this post).



SECTION 2

But, please note: I wish never to have even the unintended effect of imposing any kind of thought processes or thought content onto you, that is, which you find disagreeable to your own sense of moral sanity.

Unfortunately, however, I am not the sort of pacifist who believes in peace- and-harmony-to-the-logical-extreme of finding it morally inadvisable ever even to have my say contrary to what others have said or may say.

Still, for me, this disharmony is a grievous state of the world, and of myself no less than anyone else: I am as logically and morally suspect as any other native of this world. I often am impatient, if not also arrogant.



SECTION 3

That said, my own ideas about homosexual 'coitus' is that it is the exact opposite to what I shall call the Primary Human Force: that Force of Nature which consists in an Endless and Expanding Cycle of the Full Range of Expression of exclusive Socio-sexual-progenitive pairing (i.e., heterosexual marriage.

Given the recent contentions over the matter of same-sex 'marriage', I wish to express in this post my own theoretical views of the history of human morality. In my view, that history hinges on what I believe is the core of a sustainable society: microbiological (including genetic and epigenetic) integrity. In other words, we are not disembodied social psyches.

So, to the manners and extents that our respective bodies are hierarchies of physical integrity, every kind of relationship we have to one another is inescapably physically connected, some kinds more deeply than others.

The world is made 'open' not to encourage those motives which abuse it, but to allow every good to freely spread. Until all the Earth is one global garden of Eden comprised of many local such gardens.

In short, my response to pro-same-sex-'coitus' is that the ecology of which we all are a part, and upon which our respective and collective health depends, is not random. Not just any sexual behavior goes; just like, say, not just any socioeconomic behavior goes, or just as dietary behavior goes. Not every wrong act is a 'physically violent' one.



SECTION 4

Also, my view is that marriage, as a lifelong socio-sexual-progenitive commitment in face of the unavoidability of an imperfect interpersonal harmony, originated as the first act, and the first instantiation, of civilization.

I'm here referring to the Judeo-Christian Orthodox interpretation of the legendary Adam and Eve, specifically that they found themselves in a world which their original arrogance had reduced to a world of every basic kind of disharmony, the personal mal-adaptions to which are what historically have constituted everything from occasional domestic strife to all-out international war and terrorism. Such is part of my views, of my philosophical logic. Here is more of it:



SECTION 5

In a world of death and disharmony, marriage is a commitment, and a community-binding vow, to %%bbCodeItem_5%% married.

So, now, marriage—of the enduring kind―consists in the right of two to act on their mutual compatibility; in which their right to so act does not consist in their compatibility, but in their competence in face of factors weighing against the endurance of their action.

If the wider society has a right to demand enduring marriages, and if contra-enduring factors exist or may exist, then two persons who wish to be married to one another must have, and otherwise be provided, the requisite competencies.

Short of such competencies within a reality of contra-enduring factors, and short of a carefree indifference on both their parts to having their hearts broken, they do not have the right to act as a couple, that is, to be married. (Rights are creatures of expectations, but not simply of the most short-term expectations, but of every basic expectation, both short-and long-term, on t

Something about you (optional) human