From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mikhail on the theory that sex is icky
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:36:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.203818.18379@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>Note that so far you have failed to substantiate your charge of
>mindlessness, lacking proof of which, your similes remain bereft of
>moral force.  

You want me to substantiate my charge of mindlessness?  OK, Little
Boy, what follows is my summary of your argument, as annotated and
approved by you, translated into the language of modal logic, which
you claim to be the way you are defining those essences.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

$We start with the argument that the morally relevant *function* of sex
$is reproductive (some discussion of biology would be nice here, this
$isn't as clear or obvious as people might think it is).  Therefore,
$the essence of sex is reproductive.  Also, the only good sex is that
$which involves its essence.  Therefore, sex must be done in such a way
$that the essential or substantial nature of sex is respected.  That
$means we can tamper with accidents, like condoms or sterility.  But we
$can't tamper with substance.

>Thank you for summarizing for me.

This now becomes:

We start with the argument that the morally relevant function of sex
is reproductive.  This means that the essence of sex is reproductive,
that is, it is necessarily the case that sex is reproductive, i.e.
sex is reproductive in all possible worlds.  The only good sex is that
which involves its essence.  Therefore, the only good sex is that
which is reproductive.  However, it is OK to have sex in such a way
that sex is not reproductive, just so long as it still remains the
case that sex is necessarily reproductive.  However, it is bad to have
sex which is necessarily not reproductive, i.e. not reproductive in
any possible world, because the sex is reproductive in all possible
worlds, and also the only good sex is that which is reproductive in
all possible worlds.

This complete gibberish is now followed by:

$Men and women are different in essence, so homosexual sex essentially
$rather than accidentally is not reproductive.  Therefore, it is
$perfectly all right for MZ to boink his girlfriend while wearing a
$condom, at least if he has checked her DNA to see that she is really
$XX and not one of those women who are XY but just didn't respond to
$testosterone in the womb.  But homosexuality is bad, and you should
$faint with horror at the mere thought of it.  

This becomes:

Men and women differ in all possible worlds, since it is necessarily
the case that a man has an XY genotype and a woman has an XX genotype.
Since having the same genotype entails not being reproductive in any
possible world, it is morally bad for two people with the same
genotype to have sex, since their sex is not reproductive in all
possible worlds, whereas in fact sex *is* reproductive in all possible
worlds.

It is all right to for one person to have sex with another so long as
they have been to a doctor and made sure that they have opposite
genotypes.  This is true even if the woman is sterile or the man
infertile, because in some possible world the woman would not be
sterile or the man would not be infertile.  However, in no possible
world could someone who is somatically a woman but with an XY genotype
have an XX genotype, and so in fact she is actually a man, and
heterosexual sex with her is really homosexual, whereas lesbian sex
with her is heterosexual and in fact entirely free from blame.

Moreover, it is always fine to have sex using birth control devices,
because in some possible world you might not be using birth control
devices.  This situation, where a certain form of sex is reproductive
in some possible world, but not in this one, is morally good, because
it does not contradict the fact that sex is reproductive in all
possible worlds, whereas if the sex is not reproductive in any
possible world it would contradict the fact that sex is reproductive
in all possible worlds, and therefore be bad.

Because homosexual sex is not reproductive in all possible worlds,
whereas sex in fact is reproductive in all possible worlds,
homosexual sex is a grave moral transgression, nearly as
bad as murder, and abusing homosexuals is therefore a highly
moral act.

GWS:
>>						Clear?

>Ever so.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


>I need modal logic only to legitimize the appeal to a certain
>ontology, which you repeatedly denounced as an incoherent mediaeval
>relic.

You need more than that.  I think you need psychiatric help if you
think you have made a coherent argument via modal logic, Little Boy.

>In fact, many -- perhaps most -- metaphysicians of modality
>are committed to the position that having his peculiar genotype is a
>necessary property of any living individual.

Oh?  I could poke tons of holes in this complete BS, but why bother...

>> If X is an essential
>>property of being female implies that it is necessarily the case that
>>if a person is female, then they have property X, then that definition
>>has consequences.  For instance, if having an XX genotype is an
>>essential property of being female, it follows that it is necessarily
>>the case that any woman will have an XX genotype.  

>Correct.  Nor have I ever denied my commitment to this conclusion.

Proof that you are a complete idiot if any more is needed.







-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3029 rec.arts.books:22767 alt.politics.homosexuality:8156