Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

[_jskains]

'Skains! Good to see you around. Your argument, like usual, is juvenile and entirely flawed.

Is no one here really capable of rational discussion? Or does everyone start this way?

JMS

[_guy sajer]

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.

Compare apples to apples, not apples to dog food.

JMS

Oh, so let me see if I understand. Making personal insults is bad and poor debating. You, however, have generously granted yourself a free pass to insult Harmony--this does not violate your rule. The rest of us, however, should adhere to the rule religiously to meet your approval?

If I conclude that you're not really interested in debate, do I have your permission to insult you?

[_asbestosman]

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.

From nature's point of view? I think I remember reading that some other primates (bonobos or something) also have sex for pleasure. Dolphins too. As I recall, nature uses it to promote bonding. Bonding is also important for keeping a species going because groups can defend each other, hunt together, and so on. Procreation may not be the only thing nature has in mind with sex regardless of what we also may do with it.

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".

Traditionally Eve worked alongside Adam in the field. They were both at home and both at work simultaneously. I guess if you go back far enough then Eve was indeed in the cave with the kids whil Adam was out hunting mammoths. Still, the idea that women stay home while men go to the office isn't exactly the way things have always been, the way things were meant to be, nor anything like that.

Men are naturally more agressive and physical while women are naturally more intelligent and emotional.

Maybe, maybe not. Granted that women have an advantage in brains because of the corpus callosum. However, what that means precisely is uncertain to me. It could be that women are simply better at emotional cues which would help with nurturing their young. I have also heard speculation that women tend to be more gifted in language. However, I have seen no evidence that men or women tend to be more intelligent than the other. Besides, I think intelligence is a misleading idea.

In any case, the differences in emotion, intelligence, and physical strength are largely insignificant in today's world. The differences need to be taken on a case by case basis if the differences are important. Many men are excellent nurterers and can outdo many women. Many women are very strong and could easily kick my butt (no wrath like a woman scorned and all).

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.

I don't see how your different roles come into play here. It seems that men strength are effectively useless when one is speaking of hiding from tigers or being protected from communists. I think intelligence (or rather planning or cunning) would be much more vital in such situations.

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".

Sometimes when computer breaks, it easier to just buy a new one--especially if the old computer isn't well suited for present applications.

Our old model was based on one type of society. Things are a bit different now than they were a century ago. I don't think things are perfect yet, but I do not think that the old model was necessarily better.

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".

Why do some people have Asperger's syndrome? I'm fine with figuring out why. What I ask though is this: is it really something that needs fixing, or is best left optional? I may have Asperger's. But if I do, I'm not sure it needs fixing. Some speculate that many influential people have this and seems to me that curing it may also deny us of some of the things that drive them to their work. Some scientists and people in computers likely are this way and we can probably thank much of what we have in computers on this "disease". As I recall, the guy who created bittorrent is one such person. Albert Einstein is a suspect too.

Another example: baldness. I'm glad we know something about causes. I'm not really sure it's a problem that needs fixing though.

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?

What's wrong with an alternative lifestyle? I'm against pedophiles and bestiality because it abuses sentient beings who cannot understand and hence consent. I think offering a cure is a great thing so long as the person can consent to the cure. I don't want to force those with the mutation to tolerate milk late in life to be "cured" so that they are lactate intolerant just like "normal" people. I don't want to force people who are short to become normal sized. I do not see why boys who prefer band practice over sports should be cured.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I think some may be reading jskains's opening assumption the wrong way. All he's saying is that biologically, hetero sex and the enjoyment thereof exist because of procreation. We're all descendants of people that wanted to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, at least once. Those that didn't want to, didn't leave any descendants. And all of those people were descended from hominids who liked having sex, and so on. I don't see why this is controversial.

What I disagree with is the idea that homosexuality is indicative of some hidden biological problem that needs to be discovered like a damaged computer component. If there's any evidence of this at all, then sure, it's worth researching. There doesn't seem to be any, though, other than the fact that this non-religious argument depends on the assumption that there is.

As for depression and ADHD, we try to cure people of those because they want to be cured, and because we don't have to cause greater psychological damage with things like aversion therapy to do it. If a gay man wants to be straight, then I'm all for humane ways of helping him with his goal. And pedophiles can desire whatever they want, but we certainly aren't going to allow them to harm children by acting on it.

[_jskains]

Okay, Josh, I'll elevate this to the type of discussion you want.

I'll bite. Lets see if this becomes a real discussion...

What, if anything, do you think should be done about homosexuals and/or homosexuality? And how do you propose that it get done?

First off, I just feel that we should properly classify it. Accept it is a defect and approach it as such. The end result still requires people to be accepting that they have an issue to deal with, but don't go on to promote it through pro-homosexual education, pro-same sex marriages, etc. Statistics have repeatedly shown that traditional familes are the most effective means of raising a kid.

In a traditional marriage, there is a 10% chance of behavioral problems.
In a single parent home, there is a 25% chance of behavioral problems.
Of non-traditional environments, there is a significant increase of the amount of drug problems.

Promotion of non-traditional familes, including same sex familes (adoptions) could have lasting effects that we currently do not fully understood and will never understand as long as this is promoted as an "alternative" lifestyle. Can you imagine the flack people will be getting if they try to even research homosexuality as anything other than an alternative lifestyle? They would be marked as a bigot. Your a bigot if you don't agree.

Then we can get into the gender issue. We can no longer say "mommy and daddy". We'll have to get rid of "Prom Queen and Prom King". Then we have to get rid of boy/girl bathrooms because we need to protect "transexuals".

Don't think that is happening? Follow California laws like SB777.

JMS

[_Blixa]

Good post Asbestos! However, you really didn't address the argument that WWII caused gender confusion. That was my favorite part.

[_guy sajer]

I think some may be reading jskains's opening assumption the wrong way. All he's saying is that biologically, hetero sex and the enjoyment thereof exist because of procreation. We're all descendants of people that wanted to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, at least once. Those that didn't want to, didn't leave any descendants. And all of those people were descended from hominids who liked having sex, and so on. I don't see why this is controversial.

What I disagree with is the idea that homosexuality is indicative of some hidden biological problem that needs to be discovered like a damaged computer component. If there's any evidence of this at all, then sure, it's worth researching. There doesn't seem to be any, though, other than the fact that this non-religious argument depends on the assumption that there is.

As for depression and ADHD, we try to cure people of those because they want to be cured, and because we don't have to cause greater psychological damage with things like aversion therapy to do it. If a gay man wants to be straight, then I'm all for humane ways of helping him with his goal. And pedophiles can desire whatever they want, but we certainly aren't going to allow them to harm children by acting on it.

He's had plenty of opportunity to clarify his opening statement, which he has not done. If he mis-spoke, then let him say so and give it another shot. I am happy to accept his clarification and go from there.

[_asbestosman]

'Skains! Good to see you around. Your argument, like usual, is juvenile and entirely flawed.

Is no one here really capable of rational discussion? Or does everyone start this way?

I think you are mistaken. Gad attacked your argument, not you. Isn't that precisely what one should do in a debate?

[_jskains]

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.

Compare apples to apples, not apples to dog food.

JMS

Oh, so let me see if I understand. Making personal insults is bad and poor debating. You, however, have generously granted yourself a free pass to insult Harmony--this does not violate your rule. The rest of us, however, should adhere to the rule religiously to meet your approval?

If I conclude that you're not really interested in debate, do I have your permission to insult you?

Yeah, my comment was REALLY insulting. Please put things in context.

Our interaction - I offered a thought for discussion - You immediately went after my sexuality and my wife (made it personal)

My interaction with harmony - She came after me in the first thread, she attacked me in this thread, and I made a small comeback saying she isn't always right.

WOWSERS, hold the press. I said she isn't always right. The horrors of insults!

*eyeroll*

JMS

[_Gadianton]

I think some may be reading jskains's opening assumption the wrong way. All he's saying is that biologically, hetero sex and the enjoyment thereof exist because of procreation. We're all descendants of people that wanted to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, at least once. Those that didn't want to, didn't leave any descendants. And all of those people were descended from hominids who liked having sex, and so on. I don't see why this is controversial.

Not true. Hence, why he raises this question, "The question becomes, why does this mechanism fail?"