harmony wrote: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!
Well, then you don't have much to hate, do you Harmony?
Who Knows wrote: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!
I didn't deny that *gasp*, but ultimately as much as we want to make sex into something deep, that is a creation of society, not nature. The pleasure function was a mechanism we abuse today. In order to discuss a positon you start with the raw data then work from there. But instead of sitting down and discussing it, it went south. Why have a discussion board if no one wants to discuss anything? Why not say perhaps:
"I see what your saying, but this is what I view. Since we have evoved socially to change the dynamics of sex.... blah blah blah".. It never had to get personal. But then someone like harmony gets ugly and it falls apart..
It would have been an interesting discussion if people on the board were really into honest discussion.
Charity (mrs. strawman) meet Mr. strawman. You 2 should get along just fine.
Some of you really need to learn the definition of a "Strawman argument", because you folks are trying to use it as cannon fodder rather than use it like it should be.
Okay, Josh, I'll elevate this to the type of discussion you want.
What, if anything, do you think should be done about homosexuals and/or homosexuality? And how do you propose that it get done?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
harmony wrote: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!
Well, then you don't have much to hate, do you Harmony?
JMS
Yowza!!! And this from the person who in a recent reply to me chided me for making personal insults? Something about how good debaters never make it personal.
One data point suggesting that consistency is not one of jskains's strong points.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
jskains wrote:I didn't deny that *gasp*, but ultimately as much as we want to make sex into something deep, that is a creation of society, not nature. The pleasure function was a mechanism we abuse today.
You mean like when we eat dessert?
I suppose anything can be abused. I'm curious though as to why two dudes getting it on together is any worse than one dude getting it on with himself (or maybe with a plastic pal). I also wonder why that is worse than what happens in the middle of the night with certain dreams. Is your argument merely that we shouldn't give special governmental recognition to there relationships?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
jskains wrote: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
By any chance are you familiar with the work of Wade Englund? Also, are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument"? Or with the political laughingstock named Rick Santorum?
jskains wrote: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
By any chance are you familiar with the work of Wade Englund? Also, are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as the "slippery slope argument"? Or with the political laughingstock named Rick Santorum?
Sadly, I used to think this way. One thing I don't get, why do promoting tolerance for gays or prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation constitute" promoting homosexuality? The Constitution protects the rights of Mormons to worship as Mormons, but it by no means promotes Mormonism. Same thing with speech. Protecting free speech by no means implies promotion of a particular type of speech.
Another question, does it imply anything about our new poster that the first salvo he launches here is a diatribe againts homosexuality? Perhaps not, but I find it curious. (I'm not suggesting latent gay tendencies or anything sinister--I'm just a bit fascinated with the religious right's fascination with the topic, I infer that jskains, for some unknown reason, is equally fascinated with it.)
I was at a Utah Jazz game the other night. Sitting in front of us was a gay couple holding hands and being obviously (though appropriately) affectionate. I thought, "damn, if this can fly in SLC, maybe there's hope after all."
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
harmony wrote: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!
Well, then you don't have much to hate, do you Harmony?
JMS
Yowza!!! And this from the person who in a recent reply to me chided me for making personal insults? Something about how good debaters never make it personal.
One data point suggesting that consistency is not one of jskains's strong points.
Harmony was never interested in debate. I've known that for years. She had a really bad experience and blames the ENTIRE church for it, even though the Church itself had nothing to do with it. Plus, we are already personal when she starts making references to how my bedtime activities are, not that it is any of her business.
'Skains! Good to see you around. Your argument, like usual, is juvenile and entirely flawed.
Prehumans must have been promiscuous and lived entirely contrary to virtually any modern moral codes including those found in Mormonism (unless you count the destitute sex mongering of early church leaders). Prehistory must be filled with stories of males that mated with multiple partners, maximizing genetic diversity, and showing only emotionally distant responsibility to the needs of children. But what worked a few million years ago doesn't necessarily work for today. It's trivial to see that homosexuality couldn't have brought about the human species but then again neither could have monogamous lifetime relationships. Community relationships, language and so on change the rules of what will work best for the survival or pleasure of the species on the whole, if that's your concern.
The arguments for pure biological functionality work best to explain the survival of say, a shark. Sharks are loners that are hardwired for every little detail of their lives. Dolphins, unlike sharks, aren't clearly built precisely for every instance of their behavior. when they, as a pack, can take down a shark it's not exactly that dolphin tails and noses are designed to kill. Animals with community can afford to be physically inferior to lone predators and to drift in use from the historic context of their appendages. Isolating biological functions to explain them in total is insanity. It would be the ultimate mistake to do this with humans.
Gene Simmons from Kiss makes an incredibly informed, articulate and careful yet hopelessly flawed argument to defend his addiction to womanizing on the same basis as Skains, evolutionary history. His argument is a thousand times better informed and presented than Skains's childish speculation and analogizing. But in the end, he fails to make his case for the same reason.
If we had a million earths to compare where human-like life evolved, one thing that might help explain the ultimate survival of technologically advanced humans is natural means for population control. Humans, unlike molds, don't need to explode exponentially. It may be the case that it's no accident advanced societies seemed to privilege smaller families and monogamy. Or even homosexuality.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.