Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

[_asbestosman]

JMS,

Please ignore the petty snipes and adress my and Gadianton's rebuttals.

[_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?

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

Harmony: "Geez, I hate it when I'm right!"

jskains: "Well, then you don't have much to hate, do you Harmony?"

Let's throw this open to others. Perhaps I'm wrong. Do you interpret this as a "'small' comeback saying Harmony isn't always rights" or do you interpret this as a deliberate attempt to insult Harmony? Or something else?

Second question.

Is jskains, who chided me for making personal insults and who said that good debaters never personalize things, being inconsistent?

[_asbestosman]

Do you interpret this as a "'small' comeback saying Harmony isn't always rights" or do you interpret this as a deliberate attempt to insult Harmony? Or something else?

Second question.

Is jskains, who chided me for making personal insults and who said that good debaters never personalize things, being inconsistent?

1) and 2) I don't care.

I want jskains to answer the actual substantive replies he has received instead of worrying about who is insulting whom. I think the actual debate could be fun and I feel it's a pity that this discussion is getting sidetracked.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

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.

Is there any data on increased behavioral problems in children raised by homosexuals? Your argument is dependent on the assumption that there is, yet you're counting on future research to bear that out for you.

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.

There is absolutely nothing preventing this kind of research. We don't have to judge lifestyles as valid or invalid to gather and analyze data on them.

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".

This is completely ridiculous. Are people suddenly unable to describe a person's skin color as black or white just because we don't consider one color to be "normal" and the other an "abnormal"?

[_jskains]

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.

Higher/intelligent primates figured out how to enjoy a sideaffect of sexuality. Imagine that.

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.

We must be reading different books. The common "hunter/gatherer" model that has repeated over and over is fairly consistant with the males usually taking on the more dangerous tasks. While there are exceptions (Amazons), that isn't the rule.

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).

But your throwing out exceptions to make your point. There is a reason men pass firefighter tests and women get overall better grades. There are also people born with one leg, but I am not sure I would suddenly think that a human anatomy book should say "humans have two, three, or sometimes one leg".

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

Sometimes, however, the new model is made of cheap plastic to convince you that it only lasts for so long and you keep needing to buy a new one evey few years.

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.

Is that nessesarily good? Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed. School shootings are on the rise. Are we saying these are just acceptable facts and we should make due?

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.

Considering that I have been involved in special education and have a family all involved, I can tell you that in most cases, Asperger's really causes problems that ultimately fustrate the child. It would be a nice situation to fix or avoid. But you could do that with anything. Is it good that some scientist gets cancer so they can find a cure? Perhaps his cancer causes him to find a cure to a related disease. So we look at the guy and say "well, I am grateful you are dying of cancer.." Or "Oh, more people should get cancer so we can have more cures!"

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.

There is a book on Pedophilia that actually promotes it and demonstrates that the "children" are ready and we understimate their independence. It says that a child of 10 could easily learn sexuality from an adult and it should be ok...

You might be horrified on that idea, but at one time people were horrified about homosexuality. Is it just a matter of time?

JMS

[_jskains]

This is completely ridiculous. Are people suddenly unable to describe a person's skin color as black or white just because we don't consider one color to be "normal" and the other an "abnormal"?

There is a mandate here in California Education System that is removing all references to mommies and daddies in order to be PC. I am not making this stuff up. I am part of some of the signature campaigns to reverse these ideas.

Look at school books in California.. They avoid referencing traditional familes if at all possible.

JMS

[_jskains]

There is absolutely nothing preventing this kind of research. We don't have to judge lifestyles as valid or invalid to gather and analyze data on them.

Not yet, but the trend of forcing an "alternative lifestyle" could have a backlash IMHO.

JMS

[_Blixa]

I can't let myself get dragged into this, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the so-called "traditional family" is barely 200 years old and has never been dominant across the globe.

Also a good example of this:

Not yet, but the trend of forcing an "alternative lifestyle" could have a backlash IMHO.

would be Nauvoo polygamy and its reworking in Utah...

[_asbestosman]

Higher/intelligent primates figured out how to enjoy a sideaffect of sexuality. Imagine that.

My point was not about sex, but about cooption of sex to survival purposes other than reproduction. Are you telling me I need to find a dumb animal that uses sex for something other than reproduction. How about certain whiptail lizards (of which I hear only females exist)?

We must be reading different books. The common "hunter/gatherer" model that has repeated over and over is fairly consistant with the males usually taking on the more dangerous tasks. While there are exceptions (Amazons), that isn't the rule.

Yes, that's the begining of humans, but not the beginning of civilizations which was agriculture. It is also speculated that agriculture was invented by women. Also, agriculture was found in both the old and new worlds. Are you telling me that agriculture is morally wrong because women work when they should be in the cave with the kids? If not, then my point about agriculture stands and it is a valid model whereby the man and women can both work and both help at home. Even in Joseph Smith's time things were such that women would work in the fields too. Why, then, is it wrong for women to work even if it's working from home? If it is not wrong for women to work from home, then we're at least getting somewhere.

But your throwing out exceptions to make your point. There is a reason men pass firefighter tests and women get overall better grades. There are also people born with one leg, but I am not sure I would suddenly think that a human anatomy book should say "humans have two, three, or sometimes one leg".

You think grades corresponds to intelligence? Oh brother. I have heard speculation that boys tend not to focus attention as well as girls do. You may be right about physical strength. I certainly acknowledge that differences exist between the average woman and the average man. My point was that these differences are not significant for most things and the differences are close enough that there is much overlap. There is more overlap here than there are with numver of appendages and the like. Furthermore the differences do no matter expect in very few specialized cases such as firefighting.

Sometimes, however, the new model is made of cheap plastic to convince you that it only lasts for so long and you keep needing to buy a new one evey few years.

Qute true. So let's not assume that it was tossed for one reason or the other without examining it further.

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.

Is that nessesarily good? Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed. School shootings are on the rise. Are we saying these are just acceptable facts and we should make due?

Nope. But I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle by going to the old model again. That is, I don't think the old model will address current problems. Furthermore, I'm not so sure I like the old problems (racism, sexism. etc.) any better.

Considering that I have been involved in special education and have a family all involved, I can tell you that in most cases, Asperger's really causes problems that ultimately fustrate the child. It would be a nice situation to fix or avoid. But you could do that with anything. Is it good that some scientist gets cancer so they can find a cure? Perhaps his cancer causes him to find a cure to a related disease. So we look at the guy and say "well, I am grateful you are dying of cancer.." Or "Oh, more people should get cancer so we can have more cures!"

I think your perception of Asperger's is colored by where you were involved such as mine is by who I know. If I have it, it would be a very mild case. I know others like me and I see it as adding spice to personality instad of being a problem. No, I'm not saying that it's good when people have cancer so that we can find a cure. Maybe Asperger's is the wrong example. Look at something else more benign. Look at baldness. Look at other personality quirks such as boys who prefer band over sports.

Furthermore, I think that if possible and reasonable, it should be left up to the person to decide whether or not to "cure" himself. While I don't wish Asperger's nor cancer on anyone, I don't wish to force a cure on either. Certainly it becomes more tricky with children, but then again, I would prefer having a child wait until adulthood to cure baldness. If homosexulaity is merely abnormal instead of inherently frustrating, perhaps the decision to cure it is best left to the person when he or she becomes and adult and can make an informed choice.

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.

There is a book on Pedophilia that actually promotes it and demonstrates that the "children" are ready and we understimate their independence. It says that a child of 10 could easily learn sexuality from an adult and it should be ok...

You might be horrified on that idea, but at one time people were horrified about homosexuality. Is it just a matter of time?

If it were just me being horrified, it would not be a sufficient reason. I am disguisted by mayoinnaise. I am horrified by bees.

If we can really demonstrate that children are mature enough to understand and consent, then I see no reason to prevent it. However, I think that's about as likely to be demonstrated as it would be to demonstrate that the earth is flat and the roundness is merely space-time warpage or an illusion. To really demonstrate that children can truly understand to consent will take a lot of evidence because there is no way we can afford to do some sick experiment on kids on a trial basis to see.

[_jskains]

I can't let myself get dragged into this, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the so-called "traditional family" is barely 200 years old and has never been dominant across the globe.

uh, Riiiiiight. And the world is only 6000 years old.

JMS