Homosexuality Facts

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

 

yeah, I kinda figured YOU wouldn`t have a clue even if it walked up and slapped ya in the face!

 

Yeah, damn scientists with their 'evidence'

[atinymonkey]

 

 

Methink's this should go to the Debatemobile.

[JaKiri]

atinymonkey said in post # :

 

Methink's this should go to the Debatemobile.

 

Is Debatemobile the jamaican Batmobile?

[YT2095]

if you read VERY carefully WITHOUT your prejudiced blinkers on, you see quite clearly that ALL efforts were made and worded in such a way as to NOT be offensive.

Hovever... whith such homophilic opposition, it`s more than evident that you`ll take this stance and have done.

the evidence that it is NOT natural is more than abundant, yes, damn scientist and their evidence indeed, infact the evidence is quite damning to your case that it is natural or normal!

 

the only reasonable case put forwards, by atinymonkey, was that it`s perhaps a mechanism of population control.

that at least has SOME element of plausibility to it

 

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

if you read VERY carefully WITHOUT your prejudiced blinkers on, you see quite clearly that ALL efforts were made and worded in such a way as to NOT be offensive.

Hovever... whith such homophilic opposition, it`s more than evident that you`ll take this stance and have done.

the evidence that it is NOT natural is more than abundant, yes, damn scientist and their evidence indeed, infact the evidence is quite damning to your case that it is natural or normal!

 

the only reasonable case put forwards by atinymonkey was that it`s perhaps a mechanism of population control

 

How the hell is the fact that it occurs in nature evidence to it being unnatural?

 

Furthermore, atm's comment on population control mechanism is merely a comment on why it can be seen as a good thing for the species, and for it to be true homosexuality must be natural.

 

Your argument is selfdenying.

[YT2095]

as stated previously, there are a GOOD MANY things that occur, such as those that mess with kids, is that natural?

rats or rabbits will occasionaly eat thier children, does that mean that if we did it, all`s good and happy

 

I somehow think NOT!

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

as stated previously, there are a GOOD MANY things that occur, such as those that mess with kids, is that natural?

rats or rabbits will occasionaly eat thier children, does that mean that if we did it, all`s good and happy

 

I somehow think NOT!

 

I'm not the one equating natural with good, dude.

 

Anyway, paedophilia (as an example) is natural, and has been viewed as such in many cultures. Our culture, however, generally rests morally on the right and freedom to choose, so it's viewed as improper.

[Cheetah]

wolfson said in post # :

Cheetah what a idiotic remark!

 

What remark by me was it that was idiotic, and why??

[jadote]

YT2095 said in post #81 :

as stated previously, there are a GOOD MANY things that occur, such as those that mess with kids, is that natural?

 

 

Are you trying to say that only homosexuals molest children?

[JaKiri]

jadote said in post # :

Are you trying to say that only homosexuals molest children?

 

He's almost certainly not.

[jadote]

Bringing up homosexual pedophiles is irrelevant since every sexuality has its pedophiles.

[JaKiri]

jadote said in post # :

Bringing up homosexual pedophiles is irrelevant since every sexuality has its pedophiles.

 

I don't think anyone brought it up though. You're just imagining it.

[Sayonara]

The association was implied.

[YT2095]

as MrL said, no I am NOT equating the 2 together, there is indeed a clear distiction.

if you`de have read my posts, it was used as an example to demonstrate that just because something occurs or happens, does NOT necesarily mean it`s good or right.

that in effect is the entirity of my point, if one chooses to twist or take my words out of context, then that is a problem for them alone.

but NO, that was not at all my meaning anymore than it would be calling them rats and rabbits that eat their young!

[Sayonara]

If that wasn't what you meant, what was the point of posting it?

 

I don't think you can complain people aren't reading your posts properly when you yourself make posts about morallity despite the good arguments (further up this thread and in others) that morality can't be arbitrarily assigned to biological functions.

[YT2095]

Morality? I don`t think I ever once said anything about that?

 

I`ll stand corrected however if you can quote or show me where I mentioned "morality"

[MishMish]

Sayonara:

 

"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."

 

No, it only makes both arguments fallacious

 

YT:

 

"the only reasonable case put forwards, by atinymonkey, was that it`s perhaps a mechanism of population control.

that at least has SOME element of plausibility to it"

 

And that is also overlooking that evolution has no "purpose" and diversity has no "purpose." Looking for a purpose for homesexualtiy is the wrong approach, and asking homosexuals to justify themselves by some purpose is the wrong approach.

 

(Aside, I am not sure how people make multiple quotes in a reply, I am finding this awkward at best, and still have a page to go, so hope you will be forgiving if I split it up here with an additional post, may or may not, will have to see)

 

I want to back up to the diseased discussion as well a bit though, as that potentially touches close to home. Technically speaking, I have no problem adopting a diesease model based on the definitions given. I have no doubt my brain is abnormal compared to most of the population, would be delighted for that matter if I could "see" it. But when you are dealing with someone's brain, speaking for inborn abnormalities or those acquired at a very early, you are very much addressing not just another organ but a central feature of who they are. For social purposes I consider adopting a disease model inappropriate, even if I can adopt it from a technical perspective. Telling someone that their brain is abnormal is telling them that they are abnormal. It is very much a denial of their personhood in a manner that telling them they have a diseased heart or some other organ is not. Adding moral value only compounds the situation.

 

Choice of model is critical for discussing some question. Mixing models will not serve, and that is what is happening here. That homosexuality is abnormal compared to the sexual orientation of most of the population is irrelevant. What is relevant is what values we choose to apply in social situations, and I would favor those of recognizing and accepting diversity, reducing prejudice and stereotypes, and tolerance for those who are not doing others harm

 

And I find I am repeating myself from my earlier post so will stop

[JaKiri]

MishMish said in post # :

(Aside, I am not sure how people make multiple quotes in a reply, I am finding this awkward at best, and still have a page to go, so hope you will be forgiving if I split it up here with an additional post, may or may not, will have to see)

 

Either open up multiple 'quote reply' windows and copy/paste, or use the

vbcode.

[Sayonara]

MishMish said in post # :

Sayonara:

 

"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"

 

No, it only makes both arguments fallacious

How?

 

(Aside, I am not sure how people make multiple quotes in a reply, I am finding this awkward at best, and still have a page to go, so hope you will be forgiving if I split it up here with an additional post, may or may not, will have to see)

Check the boxes for the posts you want to multi-quote, then click "reply". I find it helpful to copy and paste to notepad for long replies

 

Choice of model is critical for discussing some question. Mixing models will not serve, and that is what is happening here. That homosexuality is abnormal compared to the sexual orientation of most of the population is irrelevant. What is relevant is what values we choose to apply in social situations, and I would favor those of recognizing and accepting diversity, reducing prejudice and stereotypes, and tolerance for those who are not doing others harm

Agree. I don't know how many times I have to state that sexual activity has nothing to do with it, but apparently it's somewhere in the region of "enough".

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post #91 :

Morality? I don`t think I ever once said anything about that?

I`ll stand corrected however if you can quote or show me where I mentioned "morality"

 

YT2095 said in post #89 :

if you`de have read my posts, it was used as an example to demonstrate that just because something occurs or happens, does NOT necesarily mean it`s good or right.

 

If you are talking about something being "good or right", you're discussing morality. QED.

[MishMish]

YT2095 said in post # :

Morality? I don`t think I ever once said anything about that?

 

I`ll stand corrected however if you can quote or show me where I mentioned "morality"

 

Whether or not you have used the term, it has been a clear subtext which you have attempted to shore up by stating that it is not "natural."

 

I can handle people I strongly disagree with, I can not handle people not assuming responsibility for what they say, and I consider this most recent shift that not everything which is natural need be adopted as a societal good a poor move.

 

If you are not basing your opposition to homosexuality on your concept of morality, then what is the basis. And if you did not introduce rats eating their young as analogy to homosexuality for events which occur in nature but should not be adopted by society, then why did you introduce it (forestalling here, just in case you claim the implied analogy is a misreading.)

 

I can be as pedantic as the next guy, but do not use it to disown your position

 

Sorry, would really have preferred to not discuss your personal views at all, I don't consider them any of my business and they do not affect me. But I do not like evasive arguments

[Sayonara]

MishMish said in post # :

Sorry, would really have preferred to not discuss your personal views at all, I don't consider them any of my business and they do not affect me. But I do not like evasive arguments

They're being paraded in front of you, so you might as well discuss them.

[YT2095]

"But I do not like evasive arguments "

 

I think I can hardly be accused of being "Evasive"! LOL

 

if you`de have read, the common denominator in most of my argument has been that of un-naturalness(sp)

but other argue that it IS natural, I then point out OTHER things that occur naturaly that we consider wrong, and all of a sudden eveyone jumps on the YT bandwaggon?

now, make you point a little more READ of the previous post, then we`ll chat

[MishMish]

Dang you guys are fast, while writing that last and expecting to now leave the board found three new posts.

 

MrL, almost didn't mention about the multiple quoites since figured I probably wouldn't understand the explanation either...

 

Sayonara, think I understand, had wondered what the check box was for, will try it if it comes up again

 

Sayonara, I do not know the names of the different fallacies, I just know that appeal to what the majority believes is one. If YT were arguing that slavery is wrong, assuming we were living in a slave society, and you were to say he is out of touch with societal norms my response would be so what, YT is right. Your assumption is that society is not biased. In the specific case of homosexuality you may be correct, but does not make your argument correct. What is needed, from both of you, is some objective or outside standard which can be applied to judge the question.

[YT2095]

Slavery is wrong!

 

 

now I`ll just sit back and wait for the hordes to attack me for saying that too!