JP, that was a beautifully written compendium of the intersection of science and sprituality. you certainly make a compelling argument.
however, i will take issue with some of your premises and conclusions ...
>>Your human identity is most fundamentally expressed in the informational marriage that took place between your one mother and one father.
seriously JP, kudos on the verbiage. however, beautiful language does not make truth and though it can mask logical inconsistencies, it cannot make them disappear.
btw, i like how you skillfully use the word "marriage," ...i would prefer "genetic combination." furthermore, i don't believe that this genetic combination is what "most fundamentally expresses" my human identity. Identical twins share the exact same genetic code, and yet their identities remain unique and independent. My humanity may have begun as a zygote, but that zygote does not encompass the person I am today.
>>All that you are and all that you now do is rooted directly in that marriage.
very slick.. you seamlessly transition from "informational marriage," to the more abstract "marriage" to set up your later point about divorce ... sneaky sneaky.
>>This bio-informational marriage is you in a nutshell.
no, my genes are not "me in nutshell." I am the combined product of my genes and my environment, my physicality, memory, personality, desires, and fears - all of these things define who I am. take away any one and i wouldn't exist as i am.
>>It is why both abortion and homosexuality are not you and are therefore naturally wrong (i.e. anti-you).
this is where you make a sharp turn into logical oblivion. "naturally wrong" and "anti-me" are entirely artificial concepts you made up to serve your purpose. Although they sound great, they have little inherent meaning. you seem to want to boil down the entirety of life and human existence to the need to procreate (and I thought libs were the sex-obsessed ones!). I don't think having sex for pleasure is anti-me or naturally wrong, and although I may find homosexual sex distasteful, who am I to tell others how they should derive pleasure from life (as long as both parties are of age and willing). surely you would agree that humans are genetically disposed to seeking pleasure?
>>Both these things are literal sins against your human nature
ahhhh... u sly dog. you basically repeat the same line you just stated, but now you've transitioned from the innocuous sounding "naturally wrong" and "anti-you" to "literal sin." you have stated that you are not religious, so I'm curious why "sin" would creep into the discussion? btw, what is the difference between a literal sin a figurative sin? do figurative sinners go to a different hell (sorry, anti-heaven)?
>>Both of these evils are contrary to human identity
woooooooaaaaaah, now wait a damn minute. only a minute ago, were were having a objective scientific discussion, then i blinked and were talking sins and evil? well, obviously since you have already labeled it a sin, it has to be evil right?
in only a few sentences, you have truly turned water into wine my friend.
.. so let me get this straight - i am human - my humanity is my genes - my genes are a the product of my mother and father - without my mother and father having hetero sex and choosing not to abort me, i would not exist - anything that would preclude my existence is naturally wrong and anti-me, anything that is anti-me is a literal sin - and sins are evil.
it seems that for all the beatiful equivocation... the underlying chain of logic is pretty flimsy no?
>>It is also why divorce is naturally wrong.
heh... this is the kicker. by now, you figure that the reader has "marriage" imbedded in his brain, and associated with "the natural me" and the opposite of evil sin, so anti-marriage, or divorce, must therefore be naturally wrong. again, since your premise fails to hold up, your conclusions come tumbling down like a house of cards.
>>The idea of the separation of our parents is philosophically contrary to our biological identity
seeing as marriage is not required for successful procreation, nor is it an inherent part of our genetic code, i'm not sure where this comes from. even if you were to argue that marriage is necessary for successful child-rearing, that would only mean that is necessary until the child becomes mature.
for a non-religious zealot, JP, you would have made one hell of a preacher.
it appears that you are guilty, same as I was, of creating an artificial construct (albeit an eloquent one) to use as a foundation for a belief you have that is more firmly rooted in feelings than in fact.
-el
and thank you for striving to raise the intellectual ante on this board. i very much enjoy the debate. i must admit that for a moment or two after reading your post, i got lost in the rhetorical fog and was almost ready to go make up a sign and picket an abortion clinic. <g> |
