Homosexuality: What’s the big deal?

[Mystech]

Originally posted by andeity
Their perversion.

Right. . . What again qualifies it as a "Perversion" and the spacific negative connotations that we sould be aware of are what, again?

I'm sorry to see that you feel beaten. Rather than running away, though, why not stay and really start to pick apart your own ideas, this is how we learn things, and gain new insight.

 

[firefighter]

andeity,

Why not let people follow their own consciences? For all you know, a gay person could feel very guilty when they are with someone of the opposite sex. Is that how someone should live their life?

 

[Xev]

Redoubtable:

Does any of that criteria sound as though it might be associated with commendable or equitable behavior?

Yes, it does. Every revolution is an act of subversion.

I would suggest that it is the "force of intuition" which allows them to deduce (without substantial reasons) that rape is not an acceptable practice.

Rape is illegal. You might go to prison. Prison is not a fun place.

Intuition or simple common sense?
Being afraid of punishment for "bad" action is not the same as being "good".

Well, I suppose so. However, they still don't produce offspring.

All lesbians are infertile?

You're adding an inconsistent variable.

Umm, is not inconsistancy the very nature of that which is variable?

There is no way we might determine whether or not any given couple, wheter heterosexual or homosexual, will employ sexual protection.

Precisely my point. Thus you cannot argue that homosexual sex is per se unsafe.

There: it's purpose is exchanging DNA. It does this so efficiently, ergo, it's purpose, or design, is, obviously, to do so.

Natural selection is not the same as design. Nor does evolution "design" anything via natural selection.
Semantics, to be sure, but this always annoyed me. Evolution is not teleological.

I would suggest that the female cycles of fertility are due to some phyyical restriction or limition present in the female reproductive anatomy. I have no expertise in this field, I simply consider this explanation plausible.

Irrelevent. My point remains - not every act of intercourse will produce a child.

Then what other aims might it have? Recreation?

Pair-bonding.

Sex can be used in any number of ways, and yes, recreation is one of them.

Xev, have I ever attempted to be condescending towards you?
I admitted my mistake.

My apologies, you did.

However, the conscience, despite it's subjectivity, being a sufficient guidline for human activity, can be used to determine morality.

It is a sufficiant guidline for judging an individual's moral action, however, it is not sufficiant for determining an objective morality. For instance, my conscience does not judge my bisexuality, my masochism or my rampant over-intellectualism as "deletarious".

You conscience, however, labels anything that doesn't contribute to the betterment of humanity as "deletarious". Frankly, it sounds hypocritical. Very little in one's life can be said to actively contribute to the "betterment of humanity".

Now either you are the next Christ, or you do things for your own pleasure, that do not aid or benefit humanity. So you are thus acting in a manner that is deletarious to humanity.

I'm off topic, but you're either saddled with guilt or you're a hypocrite. Is either scenerio a good way to live?

I believe so, though, perhaps, you, being more cynical than I, believe not.

*Smiles*
Cynical? ME?! How ever can you say such a thing?

But see above. I'm curious as to how you live with this philosophy.
Are you a bad person for eating an extra truffle?

Yes, this is the notion I favor. Even so, is is not too unlikely that I am idealistic in this view.

Why do you not admit for the possibility of neutral action?

I do, though.

By this logic, you are forked. (Pardon the pun)

Either you:

A: Have non-reproductive sex at some point.

or

B: Have more children than you can possibly support.

Both actions are deletarious.

Not that I'm trying to convert you to my weird brand of Nietzschean-Thelemic-Sadean philosophy (Xevianism, if you will) - but dude, is your way any way to live? By your standards, you are doing something "bad" whenever you do pretty much anything.

 

[SelfRighteous]

I just thought id throw a couple cents in. Im heterosexual, and dont remember ever being aroused by a male. I am, however, very accepting and have several gay (male and female) friends. If a gay guy asked me if i was "interested" I would take it as a compliment and politely tell him "thanks, but no thanks."

Why be insulted? Insecurity, quite possibly somewhere deep down u are afraid people dont respect ur masculinity, and u feel the need to reinforce it. You might not be a "gay basher" but they are logical, and incredibly easy (b/c so widely unaccepted) and for the most part non-violent targets.

 

[SelfRighteous]

p.s.- that was for sly1

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Xev
By your standards, you are doing something "bad" whenever you do pretty much anything.

Haha, not that I'm trying to defend Redoubtable, or anything, but that seems to work pretty well for Catholics, doesn't it? If it feels good, stop!

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by SelfRighteous
I just thought id throw a couple cents in. Im heterosexual, and dont remember ever being aroused by a male. I am, however, very accepting and have several gay (male and female) friends. If a gay guy asked me if i was "interested" I would take it as a compliment and politely tell him "thanks, but no thanks."

Why be insulted? Insecurity, quite possibly somewhere deep down u are afraid people dont respect ur masculinity, and u feel the need to reinforce it. You might not be a "gay basher" but they are logical, and incredibly easy (b/c so widely unaccepted) and for the most part non-violent targets.

Well good on you, where can I buy more just like you? Heh, I like the bit a the end about being mostly non-violent targets. . . the rest of the post makes me feel quite inclined to just let my blood cool down a bit (From the boil at which I usualy maintain it), and suddenly I don't feel the overwhelming urge to kill anymore. Thanks for that, it's good to hear from those of you with reasonable view points!

 

[Zero]

Hmm, there might be two points on kids.

1) The more kids the better, because the weaker ones therefore inferior genetic material die out and the human gene pool is improved due to competition.

2) The less kids the better, since we get to conserve more resources.


And also keep this is mind: the resources in a given area are limited. Humans consume resources to live otherwise they die, correct? Humans would keep consuming resources even if resources were constant, correct? Then all we have to do is expand at a steady rate to get resources.

But we reproduce. Therefore the population increases at a given rate. Therefore the rate at which we consume resources increase. Therefore we must expand at an increasing rate for resources. That rate would keep increasing with population until...we can't expand fast enough and we end up in death and chaos, and end of progress. It is inevitable. Zip for the human race. We die. Zilch. Fucking end of stupid story of some insignificant branch of Chordata.


Thoughts?

 

[Jaxom]

The basic limits to grown scenario. It assumes however there are no resources to pull from other than the Earth, which doesn't have to be the case. If we condemn ourselves to just this planet, then yes, it's a valid concern, and short of zero growth, the future looks bleak. And yet people still claim that we need to solve our problems here on Earth first, when it's us being stuck on Earth that's a small part of the problem.

Back to the topic...

 

[Mystech]

I was late to my Math class today (filthy college student that I am) and had no really good excuse for why. My instructor is a real stickler for punctuality, and frankly I had nothing to offer him as consolation.

As I sat in my class, though, it suddenly came to me: If the only beneficial activity which mankind can engage in is procreation, then certainly the excuse that I was boning my girlfriend without a condom all morning which prevented me from making it to class (Mathematics being an inherently deleterious activity, as it does not result in a baby) then Mr. Metzgar (Yeah, that's the butcher in German, this guy disserves his name) would certainly have to accept my lateness!

Oddly enough he didn't find my explanation to be sufficient.

 

[step314]

Technically speaking, homosexuality should not be a big deal. However, male homosexuality unlike heterosexuality or female homosexuality tends to imply sodomy. And sodomy is a big deal. By sodomy I mean a behavior that introduces semen into the digestive system. People often say that male homosexuality is addictive, and I believe that they are right. Semen likely contains chemicals that are addicting and that make the sodomized individual more susceptible to the pain and terror of any concomitant physical abuse. Ever since the first non-monotreme mammals evolved, their descendants have had separate termini for the reproductive and digestive systems, an adapation whose significance is probably that mammals possess the advantage that sex (unlike sodomy) is not addictive to females. Indeed, the vagina (unlike the most of the digestive system, e.g., the rectum) is not lined by simple, single-layer, epithelial tissue and so it strikes me that it is not likely to be particularly absorbent. The most likely suspects for these addictive and pain-sensitizing chemicals would appear to be prostaglandins. Here is link to this theory of mine: http://members.aol.com/exactmorality/morality3.htm .

As for lesbianism, I expect that is really more of an aspect of female bisexuality than something separate. If a male has sex with two females at once, then likely much of his semen goes back-and-forth between the two females during sex, thereby selecting for sperm able to survive such back-and-forth sex. And that would be sperm whose ancestors evolved under similar conditions--i.e., sperm whose male ancestors tended to be especially well-loved by many females. Bisexuality (when several females/ one guy) probably selects therefore for sperm that encode especially desirable diploid characteristics. So really, to answer the original post in this thread, two females during sex is totally different than two males. Two males tends to mean sodomy, which is an evil disgusting phenomenon, whereas two females tends to mean back-and-forth sex that selects for especially desirable sperm, thereby increasing the pleasure of the females involve. Since good females tend less to imitate each other than bad females do, and since several females having sex with a male simultaneously is more suggestive of the desirability of their mate if the simultaneous sex is not a result of one female more or less mindlessly imitating the other, it follows in fact that lesbian pleasure from back-and-forth sex is greater when the sex is with a good male (who likely has male ancestors more loved by less imitative females). So lesbianism unlike sodomy is far from disgusting and is likely somewhat special. If you mean by lesbianism some sort of pelvis-licking behavior, that admittedly strikes me intuitively as pointless and somewhat gross (but the latter probably just from being unsanitary).

Not that sodomy of females, being more common, is not a greater evil than sodomy of males.

 

[spacemanspiff]

interesting first post step.

If you mean by lesbianism some sort of pelvis-licking behavior, that admittedly strikes me intuitively as pointless and somewhat gross

i think people have talked about the whole "pointless" issue. so see previous post. and in case you didn't know. sex in general can be pretty gross

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by step314
Technically speaking, homosexuality should not be a big deal. However, male homosexuality unlike heterosexuality or female homosexuality tends to imply sodomy. And sodomy is a big deal. By sodomy I mean a behavior that introduces semen into the digestive system. People often say that male homosexuality is addictive, and I believe that they are right. Semen likely contains chemicals that are addicting and that make the sodomized individual more susceptible to the pain and terror of any concomitant physical abuse. Ever since the first non-monotreme mammals evolved, their descendants have had separate termini for the reproductive and digestive systems, an adapation whose significance is probably that mammals possess the advantage that sex (unlike sodomy) is not addictive to females. Indeed, the vagina (unlike the most of the digestive system, e.g., the rectum) is not lined by simple, single-layer, epithelial tissue and so it strikes me that it is not likely to be particularly absorbent. The most likely suspects for these addictive and pain-sensitizing chemicals would appear to be prostaglandins. Here is link to this theory of mine: http://members.aol.com/exactmorality/morality3.htm .

As for lesbianism, I expect that is really more of an aspect of female bisexuality than something separate. If a male has sex with two females at once, then likely much of his semen goes back-and-forth between the two females during sex, thereby selecting for sperm able to survive such back-and-forth sex. And that would be sperm whose ancestors evolved under similar conditions--i.e., sperm whose male ancestors tended to be especially well-loved by many females. Bisexuality (when several females/ one guy) probably selects therefore for sperm that encode especially desirable diploid characteristics. So really, to answer the original post in this thread, two females during sex is totally different than two males. Two males tends to mean sodomy, which is an evil disgusting phenomenon, whereas two females tends to mean back-and-forth sex that selects for especially desirable sperm, thereby increasing the pleasure of the females involve. Since good females tend less to imitate each other than bad females do, and since several females having sex with a male simultaneously is more suggestive of the desirability of their mate if the simultaneous sex is not a result of one female more or less mindlessly imitating the other, it follows in fact that lesbian pleasure from back-and-forth sex is greater when the sex is with a good male (who likely has male ancestors more loved by less imitative females). So lesbianism unlike sodomy is far from disgusting and is likely somewhat special. If you mean by lesbianism some sort of pelvis-licking behavior, that admittedly strikes me intuitively as pointless and somewhat gross (but the latter probably just from being unsanitary).

Not that sodomy of females, being more common, is not a greater evil than sodomy of males.

Proving, once again, that straight guys will go to any length to either bash gays, while at the same time trying to reason why they should not just have two girls, but those girls should also have sex with eachother.

Tell me, seeing how as your post wasn't very clear about any of this, why again is anal sex evil and disgusting?

 

[Tiassa]

Pogo sticks and Perdurabo

I think it was Stephen King who once called the erect penis, "Bozo the Clown on a pogo stick". Countless comedy hacks have written lines about the faces people make at orgasm, the elegant sound of grunts. And I can't erase from my mind the subtitles of Fox's "Joe Millionaire", an episode I was unfortunate enough to watch: Mwah, (slurp), gaaaah.

Nonetheless, the macabre aesthetic of sexual intercourse is not lost on the mystics.

A slap on the ass, a profanity through clenched teeth, lots of sweat. Some people like their sex ... ugly, as such.

:m:,
Tiassa