Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

[_jskains]

Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it. We can douse it with all sorts of special meanings, but in the end, it's about keeping the human species going.

Now nature/god/"the giant turtle that barfed up the universe" or whatever you believe made sex extremely pleasurable so that we actually would DO it. If sex were unpleasant or boring, we would still be a small tribe in africa numbering a couple hundred with Dolphins ruling the world. Humans, however, being the intelligent and fun seeking bunch that we are, learned to use the pleasant part of sex, and block the actual use of it with contraceptives. Kinda like sniffing glue. Sure, the USE of glue is to stick something to something else, but that side effect has a lot of kids in the hobby shop...

Another part of the reproductive system is that we are male and female and have roles. I know, we as a society don't like roles, but traditionally, the women birthed and nurtured the child while the man protected the "family". Men are naturally more agressive and physical while women are naturally more intelligent and emotional. This role system has been effective in getting us where we are today from hiding from saber-toothed tigers to protecting familes from the evil communists. These roles were EQUAL, but DIFFERENT.

Now I know, there are men who ABUSED the role system, and in traditional "overractive" society that we have become, we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rather than directly address the problem we threw out all ideas of roles and beat them into the ground... That coupled with World War II when women were forced to work for the factories, etc. to keep the country going, having these traditional roles became "evil".

Whatever the case, in order to get these men and women together, there was the law of attraction. Men desired women and women desired men. But once in a blue moon, that mechanism fails, and we get Homosexuality.

The question becomes, why does this mechanism fail? Many theorize a chemical issue. We have all sorts of classified "chemical issues" that affect behavior. From depression, to ADHD, to sexual addiction... Each creating a sense of reality different from the norm. For example, in depression (clinical), the sense of sadness is very real, even though there isn't much to be sad about... So if homosexuality is a similar chemical imbalance, the same is true there. The sense that they love the same sex is very "real".

Perhaps my computer background is part of the problem. If a part of a computer fails (expecially the motherboard), some people just ignore that part. For example, if an on-board ethernet controller fails, some people would just disable it and install an add-on card. The problem is that if one part of the motherboard has failed, other parts could be soon behind it. I would want to find out what killed the original ethernet port in the first place. If it is a shorted cable that did it, the cable plugged into the new card could kill it too.

So that comes back to homosexuality. I am against "protecting" it as an alternative lifestyle. I agree that people with disabilities should be treated with respect, but trying to promote it as a way to be is where we part company. What if this chemical imbalance (as even the homosexual community is promoting - "being gay is not a choice!") has broader effects? Protecting it as a legit way to be could hinder the review and examination of homosexuality. What if it can be cured? We want to cure depression. We want to cure ADHD/ADD... We want to cure people attracted to children.... Why do we want to take homosexuality and drop it into a different area and promote it as a great alternative lifestyle? I don't mind tolarance of people who are different, but to protect broken sexual behavior opens the door wide open to accepting other "alternative" preferences... Beastiality anyone?

Just my thoughts...

JMS

[_Dr. Shades]

Beastiality anyone?

No thank you.

[_guy sajer]

Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it. We can douse it with all sorts of special meanings, but in the end, it's about keeping the human species going.

I disagree. This is an incredibly simplistic reduction of a complex reality.

Perhaps this may have at one time been true. Sex is about intimacy, bonding, relationships, fun, commitment, fulfillment, etc. It is an act that is wrapped up in a highly complex human, social, and cultural aspects. We are sexual beings, and it goes far beyond procreation.

If this truly reflects your views, I feel sorry for your wife.

[_jskains]

Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it. We can douse it with all sorts of special meanings, but in the end, it's about keeping the human species going.

I disagree. This is an incredibly simplistic reduction of a complex reality.

Perhaps this may have at one time been true. Sex is about intimacy, bonding, relationships, fun, commitment, fulfillment, etc. It is an act that is wrapped up in a highly complex human, social, and cultural aspects. We are sexual beings, and it goes far beyond procreation.

If this truly reflects your views, I feel sorry for your wife.

I noticed how nicely you actually bypassed the issue and went immediately to an insult.

It's hard to reasonably debate with the unreasonable.

JMS

[_guy sajer]

Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it. We can douse it with all sorts of special meanings, but in the end, it's about keeping the human species going.

I disagree. This is an incredibly simplistic reduction of a complex reality.

Perhaps this may have at one time been true. Sex is about intimacy, bonding, relationships, fun, commitment, fulfillment, etc. It is an act that is wrapped up in a highly complex human, social, and cultural aspects. We are sexual beings, and it goes far beyond procreation.

If this truly reflects your views, I feel sorry for your wife.

I noticed how nicely you actually bypassed the issue and went immediately to an insult.

It's hard to reasonably debate with the unreasonable.

JMS

WTF??? Your entire argument started out with a significant, and explicitly stated, assumption. I've questioned the validity of the assumption.

That's called an exercise of logic.

It's not an insult to say that if your view of sex is limited to pro-creation, then I feel sorry for your wife. That's an honest statement. I feel sorry for any spouse whose partner has such a limited view of sex. You're the one who made the grandiose statement to start your argument and now you're complaining when we hold you accountable for it.

And then you call me unreasonable because I challenge you on this?

Wow.

[_jskains]

Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it. We can douse it with all sorts of special meanings, but in the end, it's about keeping the human species going.

I disagree. This is an incredibly simplistic reduction of a complex reality.

Perhaps this may have at one time been true. Sex is about intimacy, bonding, relationships, fun, commitment, fulfillment, etc. It is an act that is wrapped up in a highly complex human, social, and cultural aspects. We are sexual beings, and it goes far beyond procreation.

If this truly reflects your views, I feel sorry for your wife.

I noticed how nicely you actually bypassed the issue and went immediately to an insult.

It's hard to reasonably debate with the unreasonable.

JMS

WTF??? Your entire argument started out with a significant, and explicitly stated, assumption. I've questioned the validity of the assumption.

That's called an exercise of logic.

It's not an insult to say that if your view of sex is limited to pro-creation, then I feel sorry for your wife. That's an honest statement. I feel sorry for any spouse whose partner has such a limited view of sex. You're the one who made the grandiose statement to start your argument and now you're complaining when we hold you accountable for it.

And then you call me unreasonable because I challenge you on this?

Wow.

Bottom line is you didn't need to go after my wife and make this personal. Your debate skills need work. You never, ever make your comments personal. It just shuts the conversation down.

JMS

[Guest]

during this last month when I sort of changed things from 90 pecent church is true to 90 percent church is not true but still does good is that I don't judge people that hard including myself: black people are beautiful as they are the most natural and white's are the rebels as we left home (Africa) and we are the runaway prodigal. I also don't see being gay or gay marriage the same. There is nothing wrong with it and nothing to fear from it. There has always been gay people and the world's population has still grown. It's actually a blessing to see the real church history and just close your eyes, take a deep breath, and open your eyes and the world seems a more liveable and loveable and likeable place.

p.s the best thing is that I'm not a bad person. Like Truth Dancer wrote on a previous post - something about spiritual journey's that we all have - all are different but some are judged very harshly by the Church not having a lot of insight into human or spiritual growth -

[_Who Knows]

On the other thread you mentioned that you just found out that you're having a baby - and it was a surprise. I'm assuming then, that you (and or your wife) were on some sort of contraceptive. This tells me that you, like me, and 99% of others in this world, were having sex with your wife for a reason other than to 'procreate'. You were doing it because, gasp, it was enjoyable!

wtf should i care if 2 dudes want to have sex because it's enjoyable for them?

Why do we want to take homosexuality and drop it into a different area and promote it as a great alternative lifestyle?

Because what harmless acts 2 grown, consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors, is their business.

And who's 'promoting' it as a 'great' alternative lifestyle?

I don't mind tolarance of people who are different, but to protect broken sexual behavior opens the door wide open to accepting other "alternative" preferences... Beastiality anyone?

lol.

Charity (mrs. strawman) meet Mr. strawman. You 2 should get along just fine.

[_harmony]

JMS, do you remember the poster who used the nickname Patton? How about Froggie? Do you rememer Froggie? Or maybe Lady Sundancer? Do you remember her? How about Trixie? Do you remember Trixie?

You might want to pull in your horns until you get a feel for the lay of the land here. Or, knowing you... not.

Guy's comment was valid. If you see sex as limitedto some sort of procreative activity with little else to recommend it, we do feel sorry for your wife. On the plus side, it's unlikely you'll ever stray. On the minus side, I doubt you've ever tried to improve your technique. Another Mormon male, incompetent and unimaginative in bed.

Geez, I hate it when I'm right!

[_guy sajer]

Ultimately, Sex is for procreation and that is it. We can douse it with all sorts of special meanings, but in the end, it's about keeping the human species going.

I disagree. This is an incredibly simplistic reduction of a complex reality.

Perhaps this may have at one time been true. Sex is about intimacy, bonding, relationships, fun, commitment, fulfillment, etc. It is an act that is wrapped up in a highly complex human, social, and cultural aspects. We are sexual beings, and it goes far beyond procreation.

If this truly reflects your views, I feel sorry for your wife.

I noticed how nicely you actually bypassed the issue and went immediately to an insult.

It's hard to reasonably debate with the unreasonable.

JMS

WTF??? Your entire argument started out with a significant, and explicitly stated, assumption. I've questioned the validity of the assumption.

That's called an exercise of logic.

It's not an insult to say that if your view of sex is limited to pro-creation, then I feel sorry for your wife. That's an honest statement. I feel sorry for any spouse whose partner has such a limited view of sex. You're the one who made the grandiose statement to start your argument and now you're complaining when we hold you accountable for it.

And then you call me unreasonable because I challenge you on this?

Wow.

Bottom line is you didn't need to go after my wife and make this personal. Your debate skills need work. You never, ever make your comments personal. It just shuts the conversation down.

JMS

I didn't go after your wife. If anything, I went after you. It was you who reduced sex to procreation. I find this a dismal point of view, a wholly inaccurate assumption on which to base an argument, and I feel sorry for sex partners of those who believe this. If I'm expressing anythign towards your wife, it's sympathy. It's not her fault that you hold simplistic, reductionist opinions on complex matters.