Homosexuality to me....

AlicornsPrayer · 07-02-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

I don't know, Nathan usually reserves that right.....

LOL

Then I promise to use my own restraints, not his?

dabateman · 07-02-2007, 02:01 PM

This is a direct response to fxashun -

1. You asked why it is less favorable to use the term birth defect - a) The scientific community, the community responsible for determining what is and isn't considered a birth defect, has collectively agreed that it's not. b) the term birth defect, as used by society, causes mental anguish for those who are deemed to have it. Take Albinos for example. While functionally these people are the same as everyone else, their genetic difference points them out to society and society thus discriminates against them.

2. You state that only the vagina and penis should be the focus of sex. The truth is that humans don't simply rely on vaginal or penile stimulation. Sexual orientation aside, manual stimulation, oral sex, and anal sex are all part of human sexuality. Members of both genders and sexual orientations participate in these type of activity. You use the word sodomy, a word that has a historical religious reference, to describe homosexuality. When you use that word you have to take the full meaning with it and declare that anyone who has oral or anal sex is a sodomite and thus disordered and might as well be practicing bestiality. If you want to say the vast majority of the population is disordered, thats fine by me, but you can't dispute that oral and anal sex is a 'natural' part of the human sex life regardless of a persons desire to the contrary.

It boils down to the following points.

1. What is natural is clear, what is desired is not. What is natural is determined by nature (does it exist in nature), and what is desired is determined by society. All of your arguments boil down to a discussion of society and not nature (I'll expand upon this in a moment). If you want to start debating society, we can do that.

2. All of your arguments on evolution are inherently flawed because evolution is based upon environment, not activity. Each argument that you have provided for evolution is about a change in environment. The cave fish whose scales become transparent and loses vision as we know it, the mans bones losing calcium in space, these are all environmental factors, not behavior. You used the argument of women getting fatter and men getting taller. Taller is genetic, fatter is behavior. Nature doesn't change for behavior alone. If it did, mans best friend would start walking up-right and develop opposable thumbs. I'm sure Rover would like to get his own food when he needs it, but nature doesn't evolve that way.

3. Your entire second post is about what is 'acceptable' and that's a social issue, not an issue of nature.

4. The third post is social issues other than what has been addressed by my evolution argument.

5. Talking about marriage, which is a social issue, why is it acceptable for people to get married and not have children? You state that marriage implies offspring, but it's only implied because that is what some in society think it to be.

I think the argument boils down to this for social issues. Innocent until proven guilty. Great concept. Until we can prove that homosexuals are defective, they must not be. Until we can logically prove that homosexuals don't have the capacity to love, honor and cherish in sickness and in health as long as they both should live, we shouldn't allow them to be turned away from marriage.

hevusa · 07-03-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

Would you like me to start a thread on foreign adoption? I would really like to discuss it without all the name calling. I think there are people here that are ignorant of all the circumstances surrounding it and why there are issues with domestic adoptions.

Whenever you make a generalized statement like "All or most" in regards to a race it is pretty damn racist and ignorant.

knot_e_lady · 07-03-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Whenever you make a generalized statement like "All or most" in regards to a race it is pretty damn racist and ignorant.

Thank you, hev.

Do you know how many times I've had that conversation with PN?

Maybe he thinks that being a racist mean you are white supremist?

hevusa · 07-03-2007, 02:11 PM

Just the good ol' boys. Never meaning no harm...

BoyCanada · 07-03-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

This is a direct response to fxashun -

1. You asked why it is less favorable to use the term birth defect - a) The scientific community, the community responsible for determining what is and isn't considered a birth defect, has collectively agreed that it's not. b) the term birth defect, as used by society, causes mental anguish for those who are deemed to have it. Take Albinos for example. While functionally these people are the same as everyone else, their genetic difference points them out to society and society thus discriminates against them.

2. You state that only the vagina and penis should be the focus of sex. The truth is that humans don't simply rely on vaginal or penile stimulation. Sexual orientation aside, manual stimulation, oral sex, and anal sex are all part of human sexuality. Members of both genders and sexual orientations participate in these type of activity. You use the word sodomy, a word that has a historical religious reference, to describe homosexuality. When you use that word you have to take the full meaning with it and declare that anyone who has oral or anal sex is a sodomite and thus disordered and might as well be practicing bestiality. If you want to say the vast majority of the population is disordered, thats fine by me, but you can't dispute that oral and anal sex is a 'natural' part of the human sex life regardless of a persons desire to the contrary.

It boils down to the following points.

1. What is natural is clear, what is desired is not. What is natural is determined by nature (does it exist in nature), and what is desired is determined by society. All of your arguments boil down to a discussion of society and not nature (I'll expand upon this in a moment). If you want to start debating society, we can do that.

2. All of your arguments on evolution are inherently flawed because evolution is based upon environment, not activity. Each argument that you have provided for evolution is about a change in environment. The cave fish whose scales become transparent and loses vision as we know it, the mans bones losing calcium in space, these are all environmental factors, not behavior. You used the argument of women getting fatter and men getting taller. Taller is genetic, fatter is behavior. Nature doesn't change for behavior alone. If it did, mans best friend would start walking up-right and develop opposable thumbs. I'm sure Rover would like to get his own food when he needs it, but nature doesn't evolve that way.

3. Your entire second post is about what is 'acceptable' and that's a social issue, not an issue of nature.

4. The third post is social issues other than what has been addressed by my evolution argument.

5. Talking about marriage, which is a social issue, why is it acceptable for people to get married and not have children? You state that marriage implies offspring, but it's only implied because that is what some in society think it to be.

I think the argument boils down to this for social issues. Innocent until proven guilty. Great concept. Until we can prove that homosexuals are defective, they must not be. Until we can logically prove that homosexuals don't have the capacity to love, honor and cherish in sickness and in health as long as they both should live, we shouldn't allow them to be turned away from marriage.

Excellent post! However, when dealing with someone whose political beliefs are wrapped in the Bible, no amount of reasoning will ever suffice. There's a reason that Atheists are far more likely to be well educated than those with faith.
The blocking of gay marriage is based solely on bigotry. There is no other explanation that even comes close to being plausible.
Asa side note there are some instances where behaviour effects evolution. For instance, those who have a higher sex drive are more likely to have offspring leading to more children with the same trait (assumption being that the drive is congenital and not environmental). A simple counter-evolutionary example with sex shows that those with higher intelligence and education are less likely to have children resulting in more children with possibly lower IQ's. Again, the assumption is that IQ and the desire for education is genetic and congenital...which it may very well not be.

dabateman · 07-03-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyCanada

Excellent post! However, when dealing with someone whose political beliefs are wrapped in the Bible, no amount of reasoning will ever suffice. There's a reason that Atheists are far more likely to be well educated than those with faith.
The blocking of gay marriage is based solely on bigotry. There is no other explanation that even comes close to being plausible.
Asa side note there are some instances where behaviour effects evolution. For instance, those who have a higher sex drive are more likely to have offspring leading to more children with the same trait (assumption being that the drive is congenital and not environmental). A simple counter-evolutionary example with sex shows that those with higher intelligence and education are less likely to have children resulting in more children with possibly lower IQ's. Again, the assumption is that IQ and the desire for education is genetic and congenital...which it may very well not be.

I think what I was getting at was for a true evolutionary change to take place the environment much change. Higher sex drive is a behavior. There have been no physical changes implemented by nature because there is no need. The environment didn't change.

garysher · 07-03-2007, 07:05 PM

Whenever you make a generalized statement like "All or most" in regards to a race it is pretty damn racist and ignorant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Just the good ol' boys. Never meaning no harm...

DO you mean "All or most" good ol' boys?

garysher · 07-03-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyCanada

Excellent post! However, when dealing with someone whose political beliefs are wrapped in the Bible, no amount of reasoning will ever suffice. There's a reason that Atheists are far more likely to be well educated than those with faith.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And what might that reason be, in your opinion?

The blocking of gay marriage is based solely on bigotry. There is no other explanation that even comes close to being plausible.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When dealing with someone whose political beliefs are wrapped in a secular progressive basis, no amount of moral reasoning will ever suffice.

Asa side note there are some instances where behaviour effects evolution. For instance, those who have a higher sex drive are more likely to have offspring leading to more children with the same trait (assumption being that the drive is congenital and not environmental). A simple counter-evolutionary example with sex shows that those with higher intelligence and education are less likely to have children resulting in more children with possibly lower IQ's. Again, the assumption is that IQ and the desire for education is genetic and congenital...which it may very well not be.

I'm not clear what all that has to do with the original assertion that homosexuality is a defect.

Are you trying to make a case that the more intelligent people are less likely to have children and therefore homosexuals are more intelligent??

fxashun · 07-04-2007, 09:14 AM

This is a direct response to fxashun

That's me. Hi there.

1. You asked why it is less favorable to use the term birth defect - a) The scientific community, the community responsible for determining what is and isn't considered a birth defect, has collectively agreed that it's not. b) the term birth defect, as used by society, causes mental anguish for those who are deemed to have it. Take Albinos for example. While functionally these people are the same as everyone else, their genetic difference points them out to society and society thus discriminates against them.

Actually the scientic community has only stated that homosexuality should not be listed as a disorder because it doesn't effect the homosexual physically, mentally, or socially. But they also don't list zoophilia as a disorder any more.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/BEETZ.HTM
And using the "new" criteria they used for homosexuality, rightly so. I guess it depends on what you consider a defect. Since the APA isn't quite the source we all want to use is it? Pedophilia tried to sneak in there too but the APA didn't want to look like it was condoning that. Highly suspect IMHO more "social" science than real data gathering type that we usually think of when we think "science".

2. You state that only the vagina and penis should be the focus of sex. The truth is that humans don't simply rely on vaginal or penile stimulation. Sexual orientation aside, manual stimulation, oral sex, and anal sex are all part of human sexuality. Members of both genders and sexual orientations participate in these type of activity. You use the word sodomy, a word that has a historical religious reference, to describe homosexuality. When you use that word you have to take the full meaning with it and declare that anyone who has oral or anal sex is a sodomite and thus disordered and might as well be practicing bestiality. If you want to say the vast majority of the population is disordered, thats fine by me, but you can't dispute that oral and anal sex is a 'natural' part of the human sex life regardless of a persons desire to the contrary.

You can get sexual stimulation from putting your penis between a nice big set of boobs or but cleavage, that doesn't mean cleavage is meant to be a nice warm place for a penis. Again, humans have the choice to sodomize each other, other things, animals(in some states) or whatever, that doesn't make it right. I mean, we are human, we have the knowledge of what we are supposed to do with our bodies. Some choose to cut themselves, some smoke, some do heroin. Just because a human CAN jam her arm up to the elbow into a vagina, doesn't mean it should.

It boils down to the following points.

1. What is natural is clear, what is desired is not. What is natural is determined by nature (does it exist in nature), and what is desired is determined by society. All of your arguments boil down to a discussion of society and not nature (I'll expand upon this in a moment). If you want to start debating society, we can do that.

Sounds good

2. All of your arguments on evolution are inherently flawed because evolution is based upon environment, not activity. Each argument that you have provided for evolution is about a change in environment. The cave fish whose scales become transparent and loses vision as we know it, the mans bones losing calcium in space, these are all environmental factors, not behavior. You used the argument of women getting fatter and men getting taller. Taller is genetic, fatter is behavior. Nature doesn't change for behavior alone. If it did, mans best friend would start walking up-right and develop opposable thumbs. I'm sure Rover would like to get his own food when he needs it, but nature doesn't evolve that way.

I disagree with that...If a "behavior" such as homosexuality is meant to happen genetically, why hasn't the body provided for it. I mean, there is no other natural instict that has been left to fend for itself like that. Performed as it is supposed to be done, without all the extra "options" that humans have added, the healthy human body makes perfect sense. Sure we CAN as humans choose to gratify ourselves in many other ways, but that is behaviour. Our bodies are the way they are because we are "supposed" to interact heterosexually. Just as we are supposed to have the intellect to survive on our own after a certain length od time, yet there are many mental maladies that humans can be born with that preclude that.

3. Your entire second post is about what is 'acceptable' and that's a social issue, not an issue of nature.

I don't know. Huh? Is that an answer?

4. The third post is social issues other than what has been addressed by my evolution argument.

Yeahhh. Okay. Without a reference I don't know. What post?

5. Talking about marriage, which is a social issue, why is it acceptable for people to get married and not have children? You state that marriage implies offspring, but it's only implied because that is what some in society think it to be.

Marriage???Not talking about marriage yet. But I'll bite.

I say marriage is based on the fact that that only way to create a baby naturally is through coitus. You can adopt, turkey baste, and soon clone your way into parenthood, but the only way to do it "naturally" is to bring sperm and egg together via sexual intercourse.
If our "society" can't place that arrangement, the basis for our existence(for now) on a pedestal, then what can we celebrate? 4th of July?

I think the argument boils down to this for social issues. Innocent until proven guilty. Great concept. Until we can prove that homosexuals are defective, they must not be. Until we can logically prove that homosexuals don't have the capacity to love, honor and cherish in sickness and in health as long as they both should live, we shouldn't allow them to be turned away from marriage.

And on the behaviors we agree but on whether they should be able to marry we disagree. I never doubted the homosexual person's feelings and instincts, I just think they are misdirected due to some error in the mind. Just like a zoophile who by the way does NOT want to considered a beastialist since they really care for their animal lovers.

"They report that they love their animal partner as others love their human partner and are devastated when their animal partner dies. They care about the sexual pleasure of the animal as well as their own."

So the instinct to partner CAN be misplaced to a certain degree.