‹‹ Back to the Serious discussions Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 [23]
Posts: 686  
Users visited: 336  
Search this topic:  


The original post

Posted by on 04.09.2007 at 00:51
There was a thread about this a long time ago, but it was locked due to the people posting there being incompetent. This is a very touchy subject, I know, but I want people to at least attempt to act in a civilized matter when discussing this. Flamewars are forbidden, and anyone attempting to start a flamewar will be doused in a chemical bath. With all of this out of the way, let's discuss our views on this subject.

Personally, I have no quarrels with someone being gay, or even bisexual for that matter. To each his own. They are not the monsters that religions make them out to be. They walk, talk, and think just like anyone else, and they have a great plethora of ideas to contribute to society. They are also just as intelligent as everyone else, and they have the same concerns and worries as any other person. As a real life example, my mother's hair dresser (who is also my hair dresser, which explains why my hair is so beautiful) is gay, but he is quite the upstanding fellow, and is quite intelligent. In short, I greatly respect the gay community and I wish to see them claim the same rights as everyone else.

Discussion starts... now.



Page 23 of 23

Candlemass
Defaeco

Posts: 658
From: Israel

  01.07.2015 at 18:57
Deadone, teleological notions in biology were replaced by mechanical ones (natural selection). There is no purpose. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity it is mindless and mechanistic.

Written by Rasputin on 29.06.2015 at 20:06

The definition of a "minor" is arbitrary, meaning, age of 18 has not specific change in the life of a human to warrant the ability to make decisions like a true adult in the later stages of life. Age of 18 was the government idea to set a limit (regardless how senseless that limit is) of what is considered a minor and an adult. I see we are going back to the old days, when everything is permissible, so on with incest and pedophilia among others, what are we waiting for?


Incest and pedophilia? maybe that's how you interpret it: "Homosexuality is legal now, I want to fuck my little brother".

No one is talking about "everything", just get over it.
----
Twelve Virtues of Rationality
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  01.07.2015 at 19:54
To expand on what Candlemass said about purpose versus uncaring causation:

Science, as such, could never label something a disorder. No matter how much research you do, it will never answer the question of whether homosexuality is wrong or sick. In general, health and sickness is not a matter of science. I guess this is befuddled in common opinion because the practice of medicine is confused with science, while it is in fact a normative institution (based, of course, on scientific research).

Homosexuality is a disorder if and only if it is labeled a disorder. There may be empirical grounds behind such a decision, but they cannot decide the issue. Conversely, healthy and normal is what we choose to consider healthy and normal. That's not to say diseases aren't real - they are physical matters of fact, but which of them we decide are harmful and must be treated/prevented is up to us, and primarily a political question (though medicine can help us decide by providing data).
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  01.07.2015 at 20:15
Written by M C Vice on 01.07.2015 at 09:50

Written by Rasputin on 29.06.2015 at 20:09

I am not discriminating. I work with homosexuals, I know homosexuals, and as I said before that shit does not bother me, what bothers me is that very little research has been done on homosexuality (I still stand with it being a disorder) and with it we opened the gates for transracial, transabled and other nonsense. My problem is that we have not set the limitation bar on how far this should go.

Transracial and transabled?

Check out what is going on in the United States right now. Or better yet, I will share the insanity with you. Check out the name Rachel Dolazel.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

Enjoy. I am beyond words anymore. It is one thing to be accepting and understanding, and totally different to accept this lunacy.
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  01.07.2015 at 20:18
Written by deadone on 01.07.2015 at 09:59

Written by M C Vice on 01.07.2015 at 09:50

Written by Rasputin on 29.06.2015 at 20:09

I am not discriminating. I work with homosexuals, I know homosexuals, and as I said before that shit does not bother me, what bothers me is that very little research has been done on homosexuality (I still stand with it being a disorder) and with it we opened the gates for transracial, transabled and other nonsense. My problem is that we have not set the limitation bar on how far this should go.

Transracial and transabled?



Don't forget trisexuals. Try anything once.



Though I agree with Rasputin in that there's not been much done in terms of research into causes of homosexuality. I do think it's a form of disorder - after all primary purpose of sex is procreation and sex with same gender doesn't really promote this concept. Same applies to transexualism (i.e. feeling like you're the wrong gender).

At the same time I totally support gay rights including right to marriage. Everyone should be allowed to be happy provided it's between consenting adults and also provided it's bigamy/polygamy which has certain negative impacts on gender equality.

That is the problem, we have people, to include some on this forum that argue that the main reason behind sex, or should I say the purpose of sex for procreation is not true. I know how stupid that sounds, and that is why I challenged here, whoever it was, to stop using condoms and pills and just have sex, and let us see how long will his GF stay un-pregnant.
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  01.07.2015 at 20:21
Written by Candlemass on 01.07.2015 at 18:57

Deadone, teleological notions in biology were replaced by mechanical ones (natural selection). There is no purpose. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity it is mindless and mechanistic.

Written by Rasputin on 29.06.2015 at 20:06

The definition of a "minor" is arbitrary, meaning, age of 18 has not specific change in the life of a human to warrant the ability to make decisions like a true adult in the later stages of life. Age of 18 was the government idea to set a limit (regardless how senseless that limit is) of what is considered a minor and an adult. I see we are going back to the old days, when everything is permissible, so on with incest and pedophilia among others, what are we waiting for?


Incest and pedophilia? maybe that's how you interpret it: "Homosexuality is legal now, I want to fuck my little brother".

No one is talking about "everything", just get over it.

I am not arguing for incest and bullshit like that, I am just telling that that is coming. I mean, if we look at the current mantra "do what thou wilt" and as long as "it does not hurt anyone" at least incest, if not pedophilia will pass. I mean, we have groups in the USA, and I remember last year we had a brother and a sister who loved each other and were consenting adults, so my point is, it is just a matter of time until SJW pick up the fight and agree with this insanity.

I mean, in the USA for the most part, people overlook the issue with Islam and pedophilia, so part of it is accepted as cultural, so we are only lacking a culture to surface, because transracial, transabled or whatever will be here to stay, because extreme liberalism makes it happen.
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  01.07.2015 at 20:25
Written by Rasputin on 01.07.2015 at 20:18

That is the problem, we have people, to include some on this forum that argue that the main reason behind sex, or should I say the purpose of sex for procreation is not true. I know how stupid that sounds, and that is why I challenged here, whoever it was, to stop using condoms and pills and just have sex, and let us see how long will his GF stay un-pregnant.


You clearly believe in God, or some other intentional creator or designer. Even so, I could ask you: so what? So what if God intended sex for procreation; why should we stick to his plan? If you make a stool with the intention that people will sit on it, but I buy it instead to use it as a bedside table, how the fuck is that not my business?

(I will spare you the embarassement of going into the numerous examples of human life that go against the "natural", i.e. evolutionary-historical function of human bodily functions. If you don't understand human civilisation is one long history of being inventive with the stuff that comes "naturally" to us, you should rethink matters.)

But honestly, many people don't buy the God-argument, and even those who believe in him often consider that created things can have many uses, for business and pleasure alike.
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  01.07.2015 at 21:43
Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 20:25

Written by Rasputin on 01.07.2015 at 20:18

That is the problem, we have people, to include some on this forum that argue that the main reason behind sex, or should I say the purpose of sex for procreation is not true. I know how stupid that sounds, and that is why I challenged here, whoever it was, to stop using condoms and pills and just have sex, and let us see how long will his GF stay un-pregnant.


You clearly believe in God, or some other intentional creator or designer. Even so, I could ask you: so what? So what if God intended sex for procreation; why should we stick to his plan? If you make a stool with the intention that people will sit on it, but I buy it instead to use it as a bedside table, how the fuck is that not my business?

(I will spare you the embarassement of going into the numerous examples of human life that go against the "natural", i.e. evolutionary-historical function of human bodily functions. If you don't understand human civilisation is one long history of being inventive with the stuff that comes "naturally" to us, you should rethink matters.)

But honestly, many people don't buy the God-argument, and even those who believe in him often consider that created things can have many uses, for business and pleasure alike.

So you do not think the main purpose for sex is procreation? I said it once, I will say it again, who ever thinks that, stop using condoms and pills and we will see. If people want to change what sex is, it is up to them, up to the individual, but that still does not change the main purpose. Main purpose to have colon is to defecate, and it will still be to defecate, regardless of the fact if someone likes taking it up the ass.
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  01.07.2015 at 22:06
I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).

Make no mistake: this is something you have to believe unless you believe in God, a personified Mother Nature or some other grand plan. There can be no purpose that isn't someone's purpose. No doubt there are people who claim to be atheists but still cling to teleological assumptions; phrases like "this is as nature intended" or "the natural way of things" are remnants of a teleological world-view that has only incompletely transitioned to a naturalistic, causal model of explanation (i.e. the "scientific world-view").

I don't blame you for making the mistake, though. Many biology text books speak in teleological terms, too. You may have been told, for instance, that trees withdraw the green from their leaves before they drop them in order to preserve energy (or whatever). This is not true, of course: the trees have no such intention. It's just that trees that did happen to do so, by some freak mutation, were the ones that survived natural selection. (Pardon if the biological details are inaccurate; the principle, however, is sound.)

What do you believe, then? If this is too invasive a question, you don't have to answer, but it is pretty much the key to disagreement in this matter. Either you have a mystical, teleological world-view, or you are just not thinking clearly. There's no middle ground that I can see.
Candlemass
Defaeco

Posts: 658
From: Israel

  Today at 00:01
Written by Rasputin on 01.07.2015 at 20:21

I am not arguing for incest and bullshit like that, I am just telling that that is coming. I mean, if we look at the current mantra "do what thou wilt" and as long as "it does not hurt anyone" at least incest, if not pedophilia will pass. I mean, we have groups in the USA, and I remember last year we had a brother and a sister who loved each other and were consenting adults, so my point is, it is just a matter of time until SJW pick up the fight and agree with this insanity.

I mean, in the USA for the most part, people overlook the issue with Islam and pedophilia, so part of it is accepted as cultural, so we are only lacking a culture to surface, because transracial, transabled or whatever will be here to stay, because extreme liberalism makes it happen.



Denmark recently passed a law that banned bestiality. Same-sex marriage became legal three years before. For incest and pedophilia you still receive imprisonment.

Bestiality is legal to various degrees in Hungary, Cambodia, Mexico, Colombia, Romania, Japan but homosexual marriage is not preformed in them.

I doubt there is a principle more than simply cultural references.
Moral principles are not very convincing, people tend to psychologically rationalize what they feel comfortable with into 'principles'.
You can dislike homosexuality, that's fine, but if you don't have very good reasons you won't convince people that already feel comfortable with it.
----
Twelve Virtues of Rationality
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 02:44
Written by Candlemass on Today at 00:01


Bestiality is legal to various degrees in Hungary, Cambodia, Mexico, Colombia, Romania, Japan but homosexual marriage is not preformed in them.



It was legal in Sweden and Germany up to recently as well but EU required them to change their laws. Some people even protested in Germany against the laws.

People joke about incest in Alabama but "sophisticated" Germans, Swedes and Danes could legally fuck dogs and shove gerbils up their arses at will up to recently. Europeans and their hypocrisy!
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 02:56
Written by Candlemass on 01.07.2015 at 18:57

Deadone, teleological notions in biology were replaced by mechanical ones (natural selection). There is no purpose. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity it is mindless and mechanistic.


Erm the human body has procreation organs for the sake of procreation (ie continuing one's genes).

We do not have sex organs for pleasure. The pleasure is part of the biological incentives to make us procreate.

This is part of natural selection process. You don't procreate, your species dies. Pretty simple.

Indeed Westerners are dying out cause they figured out how to get the pleasure component whilst neutralising procreation with contraception (no criticism here, I've limited myself to 1 kid which is not even replacement rate and have had a vasectomy to ensure I never breed again).

All of this fits with your article and concept of natural selection. Rewarding a creature with pleasure for the act of procreation process is one way of ensuring survival of the fittest due to increasing potential for offspring. This system evolved through millions of years and I'm sure there was lots of dead ends (as well as other successful systems ala plants).

And it's still mindless. However the sexual organs evolved as part of this process.
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 03:06
Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 22:06

I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).


No offence but this is perhaps the stupidest comment I've ever read in my life.

Given that if a male mammal or reptile or bird has unprotected sex with a female of the same species (some exceptions like big cats aside), there is a likelihood of the female becoming pregnant than it's obvious i's biological purpose is procreation just like a stomach's purpose is processing of food and a leg's purpose is mobility and a brain's function is control and coordination.

Whether there is purpose in procreation is another question entirely but biological function cannot be ignored.


This thread is evolving into a great example of common sense being flushed down the toilet.


(And no I'm not homophobic. I think homosexuals have as much right to have relationships just like anyone else. My point is more at looking at what causes it to basically understand how human beings work.)
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  Today at 10:06
You are confusing function with purpose, causation with intention, which leads to a very muddled, pseudo-scientific world view. You speak as if someone designed biological organisms with a particular purpose in mind, as if there was a personified Mother Nature or Natural Selection which gave a rat's ass about whether you procreate or not. The purpose of a species is not to procreate, contrary to what people like to claim; it just so happens that those who do so effectively by chance pass on their genes more effectively, too. This is not good or bad, natural or unnatural, the goal of nature any more than extinction is. It just is; an arbitrary, uncaring and meaningless fact. You cannot base a moral or teleological argument on such empirical happenstance.

It seems that you have taken the first step from a teleological theistic world view towards a "scientific" one of cause and effect, but you still cling to old phrases and ways of thinking that break when you no longer assume a God or intentional Cosmos behind the empirical world. You need to let go your intuitive common sense preconceptions and join us in the enlightened heights of clarity. "Common sense" is the most misleading, dangerous bias humans are plagued with.

Now, the fact that sexual procreation is so predominant today is because of its success in evolutionary history. But that really has no implication for human life. Applied to any other area of life, such an argument would be absurd: imagine if biologists demonstrated that humans have a certain kind of digestive system because at one point in history, the diet was limited and everyone who could not digest a certain kind of berry died. (Equivalent examples are probably very common.) Nobody would make the argument that the "purpose" of our digestive systems is to digest those berries, let alone insist that we should stick to eating only those berries because it's "natural."

I repeat: there can be no purpose other than someone's purpose. This is true by definition; you can look it up in any dictionary. So unless you believe there is a someone who made people (Mother Nature, God, World-Spirit), you cannot believe there is purpose in nature, no matter how stupid you think it sounds. You are simply wrong, period. If you tried to weasel out of it by redefining the word (as "function", perhaps), it would no longer have the same implications. You can argue that someone should do X because it is intended (given that you respect the original intention), but you can't really argue someone should do X because it happens to be its mechanistic function.

We cannot leave the natural (i.e. real) world, so everything we do is natural. Our capacity to act is the result of evolution, so you can't even argue we do something contrary to the "laws" of evolution. If humans have evolved to act intentionally, seek happiness and use their natural functions to produce pleasure in innovative ways, that's the natural matter of fact. Indeed, our survival depends on us solving problems and overcoming limitations imposed by our bodies and surroundings; wearing clothes to ward off the cold is pretty much equivalent to using contraception to ward off unwanted STDs and pregnancies, and both are entirely natural inventions. In fact, if you believed in an intentional creator, our capacity for problem-solving would be pretty strong evidence to argue that's what nature or God intended.
M C Vice
Ex-polydactyl

Posts: 2293

Age: 29
From: Australia

  Today at 10:34
Written by deadone on 01.07.2015 at 09:59


Though I agree with Rasputin in that there's not been much done in terms of research into causes of homosexuality. I do think it's a form of disorder - after all primary purpose of sex is procreation and sex with same gender doesn't really promote this concept. Same applies to transexualism (i.e. feeling like you're the wrong gender).

Could be a way to prevent over population. If whatever percent of a population is naturally attracted to a relationship that can't reproduce naturally then it would help keep the species numbers down.
What causes an attraction to any physical characteristic in particular?
----
Mum - 21/10/1955 - 19/6/2015. R.I.P.

"We're merely aligned out of necessity for the purpose we both enjoy the most. Glorious murder."
QUEENSLANDER!
Go the Sharks!
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  Today at 10:34
Mind that my caution against "common sense" is not just philosophical-skeptical diatribe, it is firmly based on observation. The one thing in common with all natural sciencies, as far as I have studied them, seems to be that the more they advance and the further we penetrate the structure of reality, the stranger and less intuitive the results become. Common sense falls short of grasping reality, and the gap is only going to get bigger.

Evolution is still somewhat comprehensible, though we struggle to rid ourselves of teleological assumptions (as evident in this topic). But who can really claim to intuitively understand string theory, mathematics in more than three dimensions, or the reduction of behaviour and belief to chemicals and electric signals in the brain? We should be less sure of ourselves and more open to re-evaluate common-sense practices based on the best knowledge of reality available to us.
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  Today at 10:59
Written by M C Vice on Today at 10:34

Written by deadone on 01.07.2015 at 09:59


Though I agree with Rasputin in that there's not been much done in terms of research into causes of homosexuality. I do think it's a form of disorder - after all primary purpose of sex is procreation and sex with same gender doesn't really promote this concept. Same applies to transexualism (i.e. feeling like you're the wrong gender).

Could be a way to prevent over population. If whatever percent of a population is naturally attracted to a relationship that can't reproduce naturally then it would help keep the species numbers down.
What causes an attraction to any physical characteristic in particular?

Well it could be, but it begs the question, is it something that is intentionally created, or is it just an accident? From what I learned in my Biology classes, it is quite easy to fuck up a baby during gestation by introducing hormones through either food and water. I don't deny that we had homosexuals for centuries, but what I find interesting is that now we seem to have them more than ever. I don't know. I said it before, it is a genetic aberrations, hormonally induced changed of the wiring in the brain during gestation and/or a mutation of a gene. They are trying right now to push the agenda of heteronormativity, meaning, that being a hetero individual is just normative, which I find to be very stupid. Homosexuals and other derivatives are the outliers, not the heterosexuals, but everything insane is normal now, so who knows.
Written by deadone on Today at 03:06

Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 22:06

I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).


No offence but this is perhaps the stupidest comment I've ever read in my life.

Given that if a male mammal or reptile or bird has unprotected sex with a female of the same species (some exceptions like big cats aside), there is a likelihood of the female becoming pregnant than it's obvious i's biological purpose is procreation just like a stomach's purpose is processing of food and a leg's purpose is mobility and a brain's function is control and coordination.

Whether there is purpose in procreation is another question entirely but biological function cannot be ignored.


This thread is evolving into a great example of common sense being flushed down the toilet.


(And no I'm not homophobic. I think homosexuals have as much right to have relationships just like anyone else. My point is more at looking at what causes it to basically understand how human beings work.)

Very well put. I agree with your points.
Written by IronAngel on 01.07.2015 at 22:06

I do not believe sex has any "purpose" whatsoever, in general. Individual instances of sex may have purpose, if the participants are doing it for a purpose (or someone put them to it).

Make no mistake: this is something you have to believe unless you believe in God, a personified Mother Nature or some other grand plan. There can be no purpose that isn't someone's purpose. No doubt there are people who claim to be atheists but still cling to teleological assumptions; phrases like "this is as nature intended" or "the natural way of things" are remnants of a teleological world-view that has only incompletely transitioned to a naturalistic, causal model of explanation (i.e. the "scientific world-view").

I don't blame you for making the mistake, though. Many biology text books speak in teleological terms, too. You may have been told, for instance, that trees withdraw the green from their leaves before they drop them in order to preserve energy (or whatever). This is not true, of course: the trees have no such intention. It's just that trees that did happen to do so, by some freak mutation, were the ones that survived natural selection. (Pardon if the biological details are inaccurate; the principle, however, is sound.)

What do you believe, then? If this is too invasive a question, you don't have to answer, but it is pretty much the key to disagreement in this matter. Either you have a mystical, teleological world-view, or you are just not thinking clearly. There's no middle ground that I can see.

You do not "believe" and it fine, but that does not make it true, regardless how hard you tried to fight it and argue it. For me, both the scientific and creationist theory are one and the same. The scientists claim various things on how the universe came to be, be it Big Bang or any other theory, and the theologians that it was God that created us, yet neither can describe and explain what created the first matter, or what created God. Both of them essentially argue sui generis ex nihilo. So for the time being, I am an Agnostic, and I think that there is more to the universe than I can fathom with my mind, and leave it at that.

Now, what I keep seeing, not only here, but mostly everywhere where there are debates of this nature is a simple question, of are we a human animal or are we of divine origin. I can agree that humans possess animal traits, but humans possess higher consciousness and should act accordingly, instead of always reverting to the argument of "well, the animals do it."

Since you are so keen on the "evolution theory" I must point out that even Darwin had interesting ideas about sex, procreations and the origin of the species. Natural Selection may take a variety of forms and act on any behavioral, morphological, developmental or physiological traits of an organism. However, certain types of selection are unique in their features, and they are often treated as special categories of selection. One of these "special" categories is that of sexual selection.

Darwin was the first to realize the existence and importance of sexual selection, which he defined as "the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction".

The main function, purpose, reason, cause, effect, or whatever you want to call it, behind mating/sex is reproduction, driven by instinct to reproduce. This is why we have animals fight over mates, species after species to be able to win over the female in order to procreate. Why would Peacocks and other birds perform such a delicate mating ritual in the time of year when the females are ovulating if the instinct was not there to procreate. They could arguably do that all the time, but they don't. Deer, lions and other cats, birds, and fish and almost every animal imaginable does this, and it sure as fuck is not just because of pleasure, because most sexual encounters in animals are brief and to the point. I think it is you who keeps twisting and changing what it obvious to suit some agenda.

I think it is pretty natural thing to look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and understand that as humans we have basic functions, the bare minimum to have a functioning and thriving human being. That is the word I was looking for, every specie is attempting to thrive and progress forward. Self actualization, Esteem, love/belonging, safety, physiological needs like water, food, excretion, are all needed for homeostasis. We can see this in some animals as well, apes and Chimpanzees, they themselves have some of those needs to be part of their complex society.

For allegedly a world without any purpose, randomness of primordial muck, the life on this planet is anything but simple. While philosophers argue that it is a logical fallacy to argue that if something is complex it is not a sign of divine intervention (snowflake for instance), they are still not able to create anything without DNA, without simple amino acids, nucleotide chains or whatever. And for such a simple world, and for such a simple human, we need a hundreds of disciplines to explain something that is allegedly simple and evolved from a single cell organism without explaining where the single sell organism came from. I have no idea how we are here, why we are here, but to say that all of it just happened out of nothing and nothing is connected and it does not matter, to me sounds like lunacy, but I am a lunatic and I am proud to be one since what goes for "normal" these days, or "educated" scares the fuck out of me.
M C Vice
Ex-polydactyl

Posts: 2293

Age: 29
From: Australia

  Today at 12:29
Written by Rasputin on Today at 10:59

I don't deny that we had homosexuals for centuries, but what I find interesting is that now we seem to have them more than ever. I don't know. I said it before, it is a genetic aberrations, hormonally induced changed of the wiring in the brain during gestation and/or a mutation of a gene. They are trying right now to push the agenda of heteronormativity, meaning, that being a hetero individual is just normative, which I find to be very stupid. Homosexuals and other derivatives are the outliers, not the heterosexuals, but everything insane is normal now, so who knows.

There's probably the same % of homosexuals now as in the past, just more of them are open these days as there's less discrimination against them.
----
Mum - 21/10/1955 - 19/6/2015. R.I.P.

"We're merely aligned out of necessity for the purpose we both enjoy the most. Glorious murder."
QUEENSLANDER!
Go the Sharks!
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  Today at 13:01
Written by M C Vice on Today at 12:29

Written by Rasputin on Today at 10:59

I don't deny that we had homosexuals for centuries, but what I find interesting is that now we seem to have them more than ever. I don't know. I said it before, it is a genetic aberrations, hormonally induced changed of the wiring in the brain during gestation and/or a mutation of a gene. They are trying right now to push the agenda of heteronormativity, meaning, that being a hetero individual is just normative, which I find to be very stupid. Homosexuals and other derivatives are the outliers, not the heterosexuals, but everything insane is normal now, so who knows.

There's probably the same % of homosexuals now as in the past, just more of them are open these days as there's less discrimination against them.

I wish we could test that theory. We don't have the data. While I agree with you that more of them are in the open, I still think that there is more here than we are seeing. Plus, as I mentioned in one of the earlier posts, I keep noticing that homosexuality is becoming or is a fad among college kids, so many embrace that lifestyle for whatever reason, or to say the least, more of them are "experimenting" so not necessarily all of them are gay in the truest sense.
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 13:26
I agree with MC Vice but also Rasputin on several different points:

1. MC Vice is probably right that there was always a certain % of homosexuals in the community but that discrimination kept many "in the closet." I've known a couple of older guys who only came out in their 40s and 50s cause to admit one was gay was social and career suicide even up to the 1980s.


2. I agree with Rasputin that homosexuality can be a fad. Again I've met people who fitted in with this . This includes girls who were lesbian for a little bit because it was considered "dangerous."

3. Expanding on Rasputin's concept of homosexuality as a cultural phenomenon, certain ancient Greek societies actively promoted homosexuality and pedophilia. Their definitions of sexuality were much different to our own. Another example of differences in sexual identity is the Phoenician religious practice of basically prostituting their daughters.

Apparently many fundamentalist Afghanis also practice homosexuality in what is termed "Man Love Thursday" by Coalition troops. Religious and cultural factors mean Afghan men (specifically Pashtuns) regard women as unclean and alien and due to cultural practices hard to obtain (cost a lot to marry in Afghanistan). They then interpret the Koran's ban on homosexuality as a ban on loving another man and regad sexual gratification as something different entirely.. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan-men-struggle-sexual-identity-study-finds/


Having said that, I think most gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are authentically gay, lesbian etc. However cultural factors can contribute to sexual practices.

In the end the human condition is so convoluted and complicated that there is arguably no one real explanation behind anything. This isn't physics. It's people and people are messy.
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 13:38
Written by IronAngel on Today at 10:06

You are confusing function with purpose, causation with intention, which leads to a very muddled, pseudo-scientific world view.
Etc etc




Your problem is you're shoving gods and meaning into it. The basic biological function of sex and sex organs can't be disputed. . It doesn't have to have a purpose just like life and the universe itself doesn't have to have a purpose (contrary to what insignificant human animals want to think to give meaning to their fleeting existence on this backwater planet).

In essence you're turning this into a religious and even existential question when we're talking about why some people are the way they are.

The reality is:

1. Sex organs, sexual attraction and act of sex is part of procreation process of keeping one's species going .

2. Some people have their sexual attraction wired contrary to this process even if they're equipped with all the plumbing necessary for procreation.

3. My question is merely "what biological or social function creates this condition?" It's the same as asking what factors make people susceptible to heart disease or certain behavioural functions or what drives weather patterns or how do we cure cancer?
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 13:54
Written by Rasputin on Today at 10:59


Now, what I keep seeing, not only here, but mostly everywhere where there are debates of this nature is a simple question, of are we a human animal or are we of divine origin. I can agree that humans possess animal traits, but humans possess higher consciousness and should act accordingly, instead of always reverting to the argument of "well, the animals do it."



Actually from what I see people do the same as animals. The difference is higher level of intelligence and consciousness as well as social development means our darwinian escapades are far more abstracted and often devolve into the inane.

E.g.

1. Career/money hungry types
2. Social territorial groups at school or work.
3. Intra family struggles for supremacy (e,g. my 2 aunts!).
4. Quests for satisfaction of more abstract needs especially once basic needs are met (Maslow's Hierarchy as you mention). Once your stomach is full and your comfortable one starts needing other needs for things such as power, prestige, spirituality, accomplishment etc. Some of this is actually basic natural selection in action - prestige and power are no different to being the alpha male in a pack of wolves.

And you talking about "not acting like animals" is a bit hilarious cause you engage in typical animalistic behaviour such as pack mentality (e.g. anti- multiculturalism, your very pro-Serbian and anti-homosexual - nationalism is animalistic territorialism, anti-homosexuality is herd behaviour again as homosexuality is frowned upon in Orthodox Christian societies such as Russia and Serbia).

I don't bother with high minded ideals. I recognise that we are just animals and ones that in fact signify the supremacy of primal evolutionary urges. We have gone from some mammalian apes in Africa to a globe spanning terraforming parasite - the ultimate in evolution and natural selection.
deadone
has a mangina

Posts: 6320
From: Australia

  Today at 14:01
Written by M C Vice on Today at 10:34


Could be a way to prevent over population. If whatever percent of a population is naturally attracted to a relationship that can't reproduce naturally then it would help keep the species numbers down.
What causes an attraction to any physical characteristic in particular?


A lot of its pheromones. Attraction to some degree is subtle chemical smells that apparently indicate compatibility in terms of disease immunity etc.

But social and cultural factors are a huge impact - e.g. in the old days plump girls were regarded as attractive (well fed!) whereas today skinny is the new black.

There was a study conducted by a scientist whereby he reviewed Playboys and the models featured within since their release (not a bad job!). The models have changed from curvy to slim, athletic and almost masculine. Obviously a cultural shift as to what is regarded as attractive.
Rasputin

Posts: 413
From: USA
  Today at 14:14
Written by deadone on Today at 13:54

Written by Rasputin on Today at 10:59


Now, what I keep seeing, not only here, but mostly everywhere where there are debates of this nature is a simple question, of are we a human animal or are we of divine origin. I can agree that humans possess animal traits, but humans possess higher consciousness and should act accordingly, instead of always reverting to the argument of "well, the animals do it."



Actually from what I see people do the same as animals. The difference is higher level of intelligence and consciousness as well as social development means our darwinian escapades are far more abstracted and often devolve into the inane.

E.g.

1. Career/money hungry types
2. Social territorial groups at school or work.
3. Intra family struggles for supremacy (e,g. my 2 aunts!).
4. Quests for satisfaction of more abstract needs especially once basic needs are met (Maslow's Hierarchy as you mention). Once your stomach is full and your comfortable one starts needing other needs for things such as power, prestige, spirituality, accomplishment etc. Some of this is actually basic natural selection in action - prestige and power are no different to being the alpha male in a pack of wolves.

And you talking about "not acting like animals" is a bit hilarious cause you engage in typical animalistic behaviour such as pack mentality (e.g. anti- multiculturalism, your very pro-Serbian and anti-homosexual - nationalism is animalistic territorialism, anti-homosexuality is herd behaviour again as homosexuality is frowned upon in Orthodox Christian societies such as Russia and Serbia).

I don't bother with high minded ideals. I recognise that we are just animals and ones that in fact signify the supremacy of primal evolutionary urges. We have gone from some mammalian apes in Africa to a globe spanning terraforming parasite - the ultimate in evolution and natural selection.

A part of animalistic tendencies will always remain, that goes without saying, but to constantly go by the least common denominator, like I already mentioned is detrimental. Multiculturalism is a utopian ideal, I am pro-Serbian because I am Serbian, and you are also pro-Croatian because of your Croatian heritage, the question is how aware of it are you. You support Australia and want to defend its interests so you are patriotic. I don't view homosexuality wrong because of religion, I view it as an aberration because it is one.

If we are just animals, then we should do what animals do, right? No, I disagree with that, we should be held to a higher standard.
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  Today at 16:02
Written by deadone on Today at 13:38

Your problem is you're shoving gods and meaning into it. The basic biological function of sex and sex organs can't be disputed. . It doesn't have to have a purpose just like life and the universe itself doesn't have to have a purpose (contrary to what insignificant human animals want to think to give meaning to their fleeting existence on this backwater planet).

In essence you're turning this into a religious and even existential question when we're talking about why some people are the way they are.



Not me; I told Rasputin that sex has no inherent purpose, only the purposes individuals practice it for. You disagreed with this. You yourself used phrases like "for the sake of procreation" and "rewarding with pleasure", which imply a conscious intention. Now you're going back on that and conceding the point, which is fine. It does mean my previous points still stand unrefuted. I am not turning the question into anything; I am simply responding to what is said, sticking to arguments that are valid and criticising arguments that aren't. That religious, political, moral and existential assumptions have relevance here is due to the topic itself.

This is not just semantics. This is a classic trick of fallacious argumentation, where you begin with one premiss and derive certain conclusions from it; and when the validity of that premiss is questioned, you adjust it and suppose you have successfully defended your original argument. It is a very different thing to say "The purpose of sex is to procreate, and therefore X" than to say "Sex between fertile men and women often results in procreation, and therefore X".

For instance, you might say homosexuality is a disorder. For that to be the case, you need some normative standard by which to judge. Now, you could look to nature for that standard, and say homosexuality is a disorder because it fails to fulfill the purpose of sex. To this, I would counter that (unless you assume an intentional Creator) there is no purpose in nature, only states of affairs. People may have various intentions, but sex in general has no normative goal we must respect. Alright, so you concede this and say there may be no purpose, but certainly there is function, average behaviour, evolutionary efficiency. I have no qualms with this, but by now you have lost sight of the original argument: mere function or statistics can't provide the norm you need to label homosexuality a disorder (naturally, scientifically).

This may not be the exact argument you had in mind, but it is more or less a reconstruction of this discussion, or what I was responding to. For Rasputin to succeed, he would need the kind of purpose in nature that has moral significance. If he can't meet the criticism of his teleology and opts for a weaker term ("function" or whatever) he can't really derive from that any of the strong conclusions he wants.

Function, in any case, amounts to what a feature actually does. To discover the function of sex for contemporary humans in today's society, you need to study what is actually happening. Off the top of my head, sex enables population growth; it fosters emotional bonds between couples; it serves as a recreational activity; it may define one's identity; it causes emotional distress; it is a tool of subordination and dependency; the list goes on. This is all descriptive: sex's function is what it actually does, and there is no reason to posit a "primary function" that is more "important" than other functions. Evolutionary history is fairly irrelevant here. It is a point of intellectual curiosity and may help understand genetics better. Other than that, though, it does not have immediate relevance to political or moral discussions. I don't see what valid point you could possibly want to make regarding homosexuality by referring to the evolutionary function of sex for procreation.

Here's a Wikipedia quote for clarity:
Quote:
Function is not the same as purpose in the teleological sense. Evolution is a blind process which has no 'goal' for the future. For example, a tree does not grow flowers for any purpose, but does so simply because it has evolved to do so. To say 'a tree grows flowers to attract pollinators' would be incorrect if the 'to' implies purpose. A function describes what something does, not what its 'purpose' is. However, teleological terminology is often used by biologists as a sort of shorthand way of describing function, even though they know it is technically incorrect.


I am not terribly interested in the biology behind homosexuality, personally. Sure, I might read a good article if one came my way, but such layman's curiosity would apply to many other biological questions too. I agree with you that the biological (neurological) basis of homosexuality, like human behaviour in general, is still insufficiently understood. I am also prepared to suppose that cultural factors have an impact; it would be weird if they didn't. (So no, I don't fully buy the politically correct "You can't cure homosexuality/I am who I am" slogans because they are too absolute, but so are most opinions in life.) I just don't see what political or moral relevance any of this has; it is often wielded as a cautionary flag to justify mistreatment of homosexuals. Even if you isolated a mutated homosexuality gene, it should have no bearing on our treatment of homosexuals in society. We are all mutants and there is no "normal" in nature. Some mutations just happen to be more common than others, and there is no inherent merit in frequency.
Uldreth

Posts: 1058

Age: 21
From: Hungary
  Today at 16:09
Written by IronAngel on Today at 10:34

Mind that my caution against "common sense" is not just philosophical-skeptical diatribe, it is firmly based on observation. The one thing in common with all natural sciencies, as far as I have studied them, seems to be that the more they advance and the further we penetrate the structure of reality, the stranger and less intuitive the results become. Common sense falls short of grasping reality, and the gap is only going to get bigger.

Evolution is still somewhat comprehensible, though we struggle to rid ourselves of teleological assumptions (as evident in this topic). But who can really claim to intuitively understand string theory, mathematics in more than three dimensions, or the reduction of behaviour and belief to chemicals and electric signals in the brain? We should be less sure of ourselves and more open to re-evaluate common-sense practices based on the best knowledge of reality available to us.

Very true. In everyday life one can rely on common sense /most/ of the time, but when we venture into scientific realms, many things common sense tells us is false because common sense was "developed" without said scientific developments in consideration. The noneuclidean geometry of general relativity, and the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics certainly is a part of this, and as you said, in the case of evolution, the problem is the instinctive clinging to theistic worldviews where everything has a (false sense of) purpose.

I will not make an attempt to argue with the ones spoken below, but I must point out how insanely misrepresented evolution and natural selection is in common perception, even among those people who accept it. Most people want to see a deterministic purpose behind any evolutionary developments, but the truth is, it is just a stochastic process without any drive or purpose. Random mutations occur in populations that go in every possible "directions", and over an extremely large timeframe, the ones whose mutations are beneficial to the local environment will have an ever slightly larger chance of survival, which over even larger timeframes will result in said local population of species developing in a certain way that is beneficial to immediate survival.
But the mutations themselves do not happen as an adaptive mechanism. Popular perception of cause and effect are swapped here.

Of course most people, even reasonable, intelligent people, will not be able to accept this, for this goes against their (flawed) perception of the world named 'common sense'. This is why I believe, to some extent, that everybody should be taught more mathematics, even if they will never ever use it again in their lives.

As someone who have studied mathematics extensively, I believe the abstractation found in modern high-end mathematics makes people who study it much more capable of abstractation and understanding of logical structures that sill somehow defy common sense.
IronAngel

Posts: 4510

Age: 26
From: Finland

  Today at 16:09
Written by Rasputin on Today at 14:14

I don't view homosexuality wrong because of religion, I view it as an aberration because it is one.


Or really? Do you have access to medical research the rest of us don't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormality

Even the medical terminology is normative; even if you were to find homosexuality on the list of genetic disorders, it would still be an arbitrary human decision to set a certain model of DNA as the norm to compare others to. That is to say, you would still have to argue and convince us why such a relative deviation should warrant different treatment in society. You seem to have trouble separating these two worlds from each other.

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 [23]


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
General forum Telemarketeers 2 24.08.2007 by
Melodic metal forum Manowar influences Bathory? 2 01.03.2008 by Nimlot
General metal forum A Terrible Metal Tragedy... what are some of yours? 2 14.11.2008 by -DC-002-
General website discussion We like flowers. Seriously. 2 01.04.2009 by Black Conundrum
General website discussion Comment On The Latest Band Additions 2 11.02.2007 by Bad English