<<It is a logical conclusion that if everyone rejects heterosexuality that
the
species will die. So, Foucault's position position might seem to be
impractical (take that in the sense of self-defeating and not in the ethical
sense, please). >>
Why is it impractical for people to not reproduce? You assume that there is
some logical reason for humanity to exist. The best reason most people can
give for the self-perpetuation of the Homo Sapiens species is so it can make
life better and to create. Since these activities are only relevant because
of humanity's existence, the argument seems circular. When we look at the
Biosphere as a whole, more destruction is cause by the human race than good.
<<Homosexuality
is immoral when it violates the law as in cases involving underage or
nonconsenting individuals.>>
I fail to see why this is exclusive the "homosexuality." Most child rapists
classify themselves as "heterosexual" (whatever that means). If anything,
this makes heterosexuality immoral. Personally, I don't think that it is, but
your logic would lead to that conclusion. The fact that someone does x (which
is immoral) while they are y, does not necessarily mean that y is immoral.
Homosexuality doesn't intrinsically lead to child abuse. If anything, the
heterocentric and patriarchal ideal of "masculine domination" cause more
suffering than homosexuality.
-Aaron J. Lyttle
"When there is no future, there can be no sin,
We're the flowers in the dust bin.
We're the disease in the human machine,
We're the future,
No future."
-The Sex Pistols
the
species will die. So, Foucault's position position might seem to be
impractical (take that in the sense of self-defeating and not in the ethical
sense, please). >>
Why is it impractical for people to not reproduce? You assume that there is
some logical reason for humanity to exist. The best reason most people can
give for the self-perpetuation of the Homo Sapiens species is so it can make
life better and to create. Since these activities are only relevant because
of humanity's existence, the argument seems circular. When we look at the
Biosphere as a whole, more destruction is cause by the human race than good.
<<Homosexuality
is immoral when it violates the law as in cases involving underage or
nonconsenting individuals.>>
I fail to see why this is exclusive the "homosexuality." Most child rapists
classify themselves as "heterosexual" (whatever that means). If anything,
this makes heterosexuality immoral. Personally, I don't think that it is, but
your logic would lead to that conclusion. The fact that someone does x (which
is immoral) while they are y, does not necessarily mean that y is immoral.
Homosexuality doesn't intrinsically lead to child abuse. If anything, the
heterocentric and patriarchal ideal of "masculine domination" cause more
suffering than homosexuality.
-Aaron J. Lyttle
"When there is no future, there can be no sin,
We're the flowers in the dust bin.
We're the disease in the human machine,
We're the future,
No future."
-The Sex Pistols