Sayonara Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Any reproduction arguements are equally invalid, since humans stopped being subject to survival skills and natural selection some time ago. Besides, who says gays don't reproduce. Sperm banks anyone? We already did all that in the "sanctity of marriage" thread. I guess searching the forum for related discussions before they start the same flawed arguments in another thread is too much effort for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Cheetah said in post # :I see homosexuality as a disease on the grounds that a homosexual person would not desire or want to make love to the other sex, and thus making it much more unlikely that that person would reproduce. Mmmm, the Pope, Mother Theresa, the spiffy Lord Jesus Christ, Socrates, Aristotle et al. All diseased malfunctioning individuals. Good logic. Send the whores to the Vatican, cure them all. Life affirming decisions mean anything anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Aristotle was married and had a son. Incidently, the Greek culture had prominent homosexual acts... furthering also to the man/boy mentorship relationship that typically included sex. Men who had sex with men in ancient Greece were not labelled as homosexuals either, they were just performing homosexual acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 That was what I was alluding to. Hence the inclusion in the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 o.. I just noticed the rest of the list as having no interest in reproducing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 That's what I thought the list was for too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstarjaiden Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Wow...leave for an hour come back to 20 new replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Whoa it makes everything a ton more confusing when a bunch of people reply in between me responding to the last post (so by the time its posted it appears to be responding to something else after the misunderstanding is already solved). Rockstar went through the trauma not me, is why i was confused what you were sympathizing with me for. As for any other confusions, nevermind. Thanks Faf for that info on chemicals in the womb. So what does the index finger look like on someone with this chemical imbalances. Good point Atinymonkey, but we could also conserve resources by being less stupid. The reason the earth cannot support the human race is because of the wasteful, greedy, and unhealthy behaviors/ and mentalities that those in power engage in and allow to be taught to the masses. But still i feel its a good point. I disagree with dude's idea about falling in love with someone. There are some people who you may have a natural attraction to, but love is an action, how you are willing to devote yourself to that person, which is a choice. About AIDS--- i cant remember how it started, but i know hearing it related to homosexuality. In the beginning it was said that the gay community was at risk, and heterosexual people didn't think it was a possibility for them, until it spread that way, and is now of coarse the most common way of contracting it. So how and why was the virus associated to homosexuality? Sorry this is a diff subject than the thread was started for (faf already gave some good answers to it), just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 There is indeed still a higher HIV rate among homosexuals in the US, although its due to social factors surrounding safe-sex practices rather than the virus having a higher affinity for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 ok thanks. so a monogamous homosexual relationship would be just as safe as monogamous heterosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The point some people seem to make is that if you aren't trying reproduce then you're diseased. I'm just wondering how many kids everyone has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegir Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I am more or less neutral here but I do think that the "homosexuality is a disease becausae it inhibits reproduction" idea is not completely baseless... going back to what fafalone said; if a heterosexual couple engage in oral sex they are still cabable of having ordinary reproductive sex; the same is not true for a homosexual couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 But they're fully capable of donating sperm to a sperm bank that is in turn used to fertilize a female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 The effect of testosterone on fetal development is also being looked at with regards to autism, I'm withholding judgement. HIV is transmitted by body fluids. Homosexuality of itself is not a factor, though anal sex could be as the rectum tears more easily. As for homosexuality as a choice or biologically determined, I think one must distinguish between orientation and acts. I am sure that orientation is biologically determined, but do not think all homosexual acts represent orientation. I am thinking of both experimentation among subordinate males who do not have access to females as well as dominance factors expressed by powerful males. If there are more homosexuals now than at other times in history, and I do not know if that is the case or not, would not be evidence that it represents a choice. Changing societal norms may allow open expression. But aside from that, technology and societal support allows many to survive to adulthood who otherwise would not have, some of whom may reproduce and some of whom will not. Homosexuality may be evolutionarily maladaptive, I consider myself among the evolutionarily maladapted for other reasons. But that does not mean that conditions such as homosexual orientation or what I consider my own maladaptation (from an evolutionary perspective I hasten to add, not a personal one) will disappear. As has been pointed out there are ways for homsexuals to have children, but more than that I assume a combination of factors which together result in expression. Some may not be homosexual but could be "carriers" in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Aegir said in post # :I am more or less neutral here but I do think that the "homosexuality is a disease becausae it inhibits reproduction" idea is not completely baseless... going back to what fafalone said; if a heterosexual couple engage in oral sex they are still cabable of having ordinary reproductive sex; the same is not true for a homosexual couple. Since when did any disease only afflict couples? Your logic is flawed. A homosexual couple cannot reproduce together, but a homosexual individual can reproduce unless there is another non-related problem such as sterility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 fafalone said in post #30 :o.. I just noticed the rest of the list as having no interest in reproducing. Pfff. I'm making less and less sense in posts because I'm skipping the proof reading. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 well if being gay is perfectly normal, why for so many centuries has it been frowned upon? why don`t hetrosexuals have "Coming Out" parties as if it`s such a big deal? if it were normal, there`de be no such thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 If it's not normal how come for centuries (hell, millenia) has there been something to frown upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Because it has been acceptable for centuries, you just happen to be looking for evidence that might support your skewed viewpoints. As it's been pointed out over and over and over, almost every society found/finds it acceptable. The only people who really frowned on it were Victorians and Christian zealots, the Victorians are gone and Christianity changed it's mind. Take the Greeks, Alexander the Great, French society, all of Europe, the Roman empire, the Templer Knights and on and on through time. All exponents of the boy on boy or girl on girl. Personnel freedom is just that, freedom to do what you wish. You can't simply try and label people because they upset you, that really is your own problem. Just because you don't get invited to party's YT, dosen't mean they don't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 oh what a silly little monkey boy you are. you don`t even know me! or how many parties I goto or have or don`t. I sure wouldn`t goto a "Coming out" party though, on that point you`re probably right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # :the Templer Knights The Templar Knights are a really bad example, because the homosexuality is only assumed because of the Witch Hunt that the french instituted; there's really no way to say one way or the other (aside from 'It's a military unit, they must do!') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :oh what a silly little money boy you are. you don`t even know me! or how many parties I goto or have or don`t. I sure wouldn`t goto a "Coming out" party though, on that point you`re probably right He wasn't saying you don't go to parties you fool, just that solipsism isn't an empirically useful mindset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :well if being gay is perfectly normal, why for so many centuries has it been frowned upon? I don't think 1 century in the west qualifies the plural there. why don`t hetrosexuals have "Coming Out" parties as if it`s such a big deal?if it were normal, there`de be no such thing! Because heterosexuals don't have people like you calling them sick deviants, and don't therefore feel that they need to remind themselves that they have friends who love them for who they are. Your views on this aren't exactly typical of society's current attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Whether or not his views are current with societal values is beside the point and hardly an argument. Should hardly need to point that out as there are any number of examples where the majority has either been factually wrong or what we would consider morally wrong. But I find defining what is normal is an interesting question. Homosexuality is not normal if we look at the sexual orientation of humans, or mammals, as a whole. (For the individual who is homosexual, it is of course very normal.) Genetic diversity is normal, and homosexuality as one expressed form of genetic diversity is certainly common and I would say normal though don't have any statistics I would argue however that whether something normal or not is irrelevant when it comes to assigning value judgements. People do not accept difference well, not an admirable trait in my book but a near universal one. And asigning negative value to difference is common, but arbitrary. I do not see that homosexuality affects anyone else's rights, so see no reason for assigning it any moral value at all. Aside from general tribalism and rejection of difference, I think homosexuality arouses such emotion for many because it places other men in the subordinate female position of the dominated, if not directly by implication. Just my thoughts on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 MishMish said in post # :Whether or not his views are current with societal values is beside the point and hardly an argument. Should hardly need to point that out as there are any number of examples where the majority has either been factually wrong or what we would consider morally wrong. If he's saying "why does society not accept homosexuality", and that's a biased viewpoint that he's basing on his own views (see "sanctity of marriage" thread), then it certainly is relevant. That aside I agree with most of your post, particularly with the lack of necessity in assigning a moral value to homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now