Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts!

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

They don't have to deal with women. Lucky bastards

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Skybird:



I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.

Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well.

I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?

I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.

Rape is natural? Do tell. So, we should just throw out things in nature such as pheromones that illicit a response no matter who is standing around? The animals were observed demonstrating homosexual behavior. There are things in nature that chemically generate a response. I do not buy hook,line and sinker that it is natural because animals demonstrate homosexual behavior. Fido likes to hump my leg. Sometimes my stuffed teddy bear. What gives?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I think that the trouble has passed enough that I can take off the moderator hat and sound off a bit. I do, however, reserve the right to put it back on if people start acting crazy again. Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.



So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

No. That is your erratic summary and conclusion. I am only about pointging out that both forms of sexuality are not of equal importance in the way nature moves on, and that the one is dominant due to evolutionary design, and the other is a - statistical as well as biological - anomaly that does not do harm to the species as long as it'S prevalence does not exceed a certain mark - beyiond which it starts to effect the reproduction rate of a population in a given habitate.

I did not say somethign like that if we let poeope with arelips live, the whole population sooner or later would become harelipped.

But you stumbled over something although you did not want that. A side-effect of medical progress is that many people with a genetical disease that in earlier times would have killed them before they could have had children of their own (carrying the same defectiove gene), today survive and can have children. As a result we know that these defective genes spread thrpoughout the genepool, and survive. We know that because counting it out showed us that the share of individuals with said genetically caused disease has grown amiongst the total population, and they become older. For example, a higher percentage of populations are bleeders, than in earlier times, and they also become older. They have children which carry their defective gene - in earlier times, they often died from a small injury while being teenagers.

So, there are three forms of homosexuality: intended trying, neurotic reaction for example due to sexual traumatisation or isolation, and genetic. The latter could have a material effect on a population indeed if the respoijnble gene gets transported from one generation to the next. As far as I know, we are unknowing about this, we have not even idenmtified the assumed homosexuality-gene, or am I wrong there? Could very well be that I am wrong, I so far think on the grounds of that the genetical component is just concluded on, but is not proven in hard evidence in a genetic screening. If the "gay-gene" indeed has been identified, let me know.

Maybe homosexuality is not caused by a defective gene triggering it, but a constellation of other genetic combinations that taken for themselves have different singular features, but in combination cause homosexuality as kind of a side-effect. But again: I don't know.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.


I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?

I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.

You point at the phenomenological dimension of "natural". What exists, is naturall, so to speak. It happens, so it happens in nature, so it is part of nature.

I tried to clear that up when mentioning evolutionary meaning of a design feature in a species, or differing between between biological and statistical norms/normalities.

And your last paragraph. Just this. When a man and a women have intercourse and contraceptives or not, it can make a difference. If two men or two women use contraceptives or not, it never makes a difference.

Humans have the ability to do sex for enjoyment only, almost all animals as far as we know, cannot do that, but are driven by their drives to reproduce, and that is what their intercourse serves in purpose, always. Our higher cognitive abilties enable us for this. We are animals, yes - but regarding some features we are different animals. It comes down to that we have a second-grade reflexivity. Animals, even the most intelligent ones, only have a first-grade-reflexivity, as far as we have observed until today.

[MH]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Skybird:



I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.

I don't really think that it matters weather it is true or not.

Homosexuals exist, and I see no reason to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then many species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probably our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! - move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some people find that unsentimental truth a hard and big pill for their glorious egos to swallow, but that's how it is.

It also dos not matter very much....we don't live anymore in some sort of tribal society when survival is the issue.
Birth control is not evolutionary planned as well.

I'm also not sure about guy genes passing on for obvious reason even more so if homosexual relation is not perceived as taboo which means gays would not have to pretend as being heterosexual.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

This is botany thread - don't derail it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by Skybird

(like for example malaria immunizes against sichel-cell-anemia)

I think it's the other way around, I think sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disorder isn't it?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

You really want to do this publically? Because we can, you know.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian' (note the irony 'quotes') the OP claims to be (ie the kind that likes to wave placards claiming that "god hates fags!" and other rubbish), and was not hate speech.

As a broad minded supporter of free speech (even of the kind that I find utterly revolting, like holocaust denial/revisionism) it takes a lot for me to consider a post hate speech. Like calling a group nothing but degenerate scum that should be eradicated of the face of the earth, or the use of pejorative slurs would qualify. If anyone crosses that kind of line when it comes to the groups you or anyone else belong to, then I will be more then happy to nail them to the wall for it.

I don't censor or censure you for what you say, just as I don't for those that disagree or counter you, regardless of what side I may actually be on. If you bring your cherished personal beliefs up to the table, it is perfectly fair to expect to have them disputed, even dragged through the mud, and up to you to defend them if you can (and if you can't then perhaps those views should be reevaluated).


As an academic, I really do not see why this is such a hard concept to understand. If you don't want to play, leave your ball at home.

[TLAM Strike]

I think we got a few Homophobisexuals here...

[u crank]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I think we got a few Homophobisexuals here...

All right, now I'm starting to get confused. No wait, I was confused already.

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian'

Wow, I suppose its all about "ME ME ME"
So its nazi "christian", I wonder what that refers to?
Perhaps the later "christian identity" is more specific if the other reference was just too hard to understand or were not familiar with the OPs stated "christian" beliefs

Would it be permissable to link to a few sermons by the good nazi "christian" pastors from "christian identity" to make the point crystal clear to anyone that cannot tell the difference between Christians and "christians"?
I have to ask as even though ther OP has in the past put up some of their wonderful hate filled bigoted nazi bile I think linking to those "christians" site would be breaching the rules about posting racist crap.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I think we got a few Homophobisexuals here...

I am an admitted trisexual. I will try anything once. Twice if she is cute.

(The Frau comes into my office)

<Smack>

What? I was talking about you hun!!!!