Results of first pornography poll

[_Droopy]

You might want to look up the definition of "philosophy".

Be my guest, and then get back with me after you've mulled it over a bit.

There is no scientific data whatsoever supporting that claim, and all the previous studies attempting to support the "born that way" argument have been long, long discredited (the LaVey studies didn't get too far past the drying of the ink).

This is, of course, pure horse biscuits. If you have a love of philosophy, you should be more careful with how you stretch the truth. A nice little article from a few years ago that might help to catch you up:
http://www.salon.com/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/

Simon LeVay's (it's spelled "LeVay" by the way) work was done in the early 1990's. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Most accredited studies these days show either a DNA connection to homosexuality or a pre-natal hormonal influence. Both of which argue for homosexuality at birth.

As you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, I see little point in wasting my time with yet another smarmy intellectual hack without either the desire or temperament to do serious or intellectuall honest thinking. The stuff in the Slate article is nothing more than a rehash of the same old, long discredited brain science studies that show differences in the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals. This cannot possible argue for a "born that way" claim, for at least two reasons, the first being that only some homosexual brains show differences as contrasted with those of heterosexuals. Most show no such alterations. Secondly, the statistical differnces in brain biochemistry/physiology, even if statistically significant, do not give us any cause and effect relationship. They do not tell us if homosexual behavior and ideation are caused by those differences, or if the differences are the result of long term homosexual behavior and ideation.

The same is the case for the pheromones studies. Other leading experts in the psychology and biology of homosexuality disagree, and, in point of fact, the very authors sourced by the Slate article admit that "We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect."

http://narth.com/2010/09/latest-gay-bra ... rutinized/

Do you realize, Mr. Wizard, that when you corrected my spellling of "LeVay", you spelled it in exactly the same way? Typical for this place. Your'e trying far too hard to be "smart," but you haven't really done any serious homewok at all.

Nothing I've ever said to you could be considered "ad hominem". Maybe you should look that phrase up, as well.

I know your kind, as I've been dealing with them here for years. I know the tactics, the techniqus, and the mindset behind them. Game over.

You seem like an angry guy, Droopy. Your obsession with pornography and homosexuality is curious.

Tactics, headgames, innuendo and suggestion. You're either Scratch himself or you play him on television.

I'm sure that you are a good Mormon and will attain the Celestial. What is curious to me is why you would care so much about matters that will not effect your Celestial future in any way. Maybe you should give that some thought.

Perhaps you should give some thought to moving to Alpha Centauri. I hear there's a vibrant Gay community there.

[_Quasimodo]

Do you realize, Mr. Wizard, that when you corrected my spellling of "LeVay", you spelled it in exactly the same way? Typical for this place. Your'e trying far too hard to be "smart," but you haven't really done any serious homewok at all.

You spelled it "LaVey". Go back and check. I'm not trying to be smart. I have done my homework. I have a couple of degrees to prove it.

The rest of your comments are too silly to respond to. Your insecurity is showing.

[_moksha]

Ceeboo and crackers! Droopy is not a gay communist. You guys put way too much stock in psychological profiles.

.

[_Quasimodo]

Ceeboo and crackers! Droopy is not a gay communist. You guys put way too much stock in psychological profiles.

.

What else do we have to work with in such tete-e-tetes, my friend moksha?

[_Droopy]

You spelled it "LaVey". Go back and check. I'm not trying to be smart. I have done my homework. I have a couple of degrees to prove it.

The rest of your comments are too silly to respond to. Your insecurity is showing.

It hardly matters, as what stands out here to me, after long experience with folks of your ilk, is that both your correcting of my typo, the smug certainty of your claims regarding the biological reductionist fantasy of the origins of homosexuality despite the fact that it can be quite easily shown that you have no idea what you're talking about, and the fact that probably 90% of your posting is purely ad hominem smarm, is a clear indication that you'd already lost the argument when you started it.

I'm long grown acclimated to that state of affairs around here.

Oh, by the way, your degrees mean utterly nothing to me unless you have something as to knowledge, attitude, and temperament to show for them, such as intellectual substance, philosophical rigor, and the sense that you are actually a serious thinker beyond being simply a politically correct drone programmed to regurgitate smug leftist platitudes about subjects upon which you have less than marginal knowledge.

The clear fact of the matter is that there is not a shred of scientific evidence of any intrinsic, discreet biological or genetic "cause" of homosexual attraction. The reason for this is that there is no isolatable "cause" of any particular case of homosexuality at all, but a plethora of intricate and complex influences (not "causes") and variables, some biological, some psychological, and some social, that, for some people, eventuate in a homosexual orientation.

That's the best that can be said. Biological reductionism within the realm the human condition is the first refuge of an intellectual scoundrel seeking to justify his own ideology and escape from the responsibilities of free agency.

[_Dr. Shades]

Droopy:

What's your objection to pornography? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then the pornographic arts are one of the greatest gifts that God has given us, to be partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving.

[_LDSToronto]

I am using the term to indicate a cast of mind, attitude, Zeitgeist, and philosophy of life that has become common and accepted since the late sixties. Also included here would be "someone who is attracted to other people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation" and " a person who displays their sexuality in many different ways, or as someone who is open to a variety of sexual activities," but, unless I specify it, I mean a philosophical orientation, and not actual behavior.

In your case, I mean someone who is philosophically "open to a variety of sexual activities" without necessarily desiring to personally engage in them.

You are, in other words, an excellent representation of the mind set generated and deeply rooted in the culture since the sixties under the rubric of "sexual revolution.".

Droopy, if you would like to have a truly philosophical discussion, this seems to be a decent place to start. Given that you have labeled someone as a 'pansexual hedonist', please state what your moral position is on this lifestyle (morally good, morally wrong, morally neutral, etc) and then state your justification for this position.

Please do it without presuming anything about my position, which I have yet to state, and without referring to my character or personality.

Thank you,

H.

[_subgenius]

Droopy:

What's your objection to pornography? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then the pornographic arts are one of the greatest gifts that God has given us, to be partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving.

ahh, the ever faithful reliance on the "consenting adult" argument. I guess your position on People v. Jovanovic.
But what say you as to the "age" of consent. Seemingly the law is only applicable on that point and no other, barring your proposed catch-all of mutually consenting adults. I mean the same society that would legislate society surely can't appropriately legislate age of consent.
Do you stand in support of incest? such as a Father being able to marry his daughter, if they were both consenting adults? How about allowing polygamy?
And obviously prostitution, when it is mutually consented, does NOT violate a woman's right to physical and moral integrity; because the alienation of woman’s sexuality that is appropriated, debased and reduced to a commodity to be bought and sold is a myth. Not to mention the fable of increased disease risks within society.

why would you consider pornography one of the "greatest gifts that God has given us"?
exactly what makes porn so great for you?

[_Droopy]

Droopy:

What's your objection to pornography? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then the pornographic arts are one of the greatest gifts that God has given us, to be partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving.

1. If "consent" is the primary or sole element in any argument regarding the exploitation and banalization of human sexuality (which is part of what pornography is, and a hint at one aspect of why I oppose it), and not moral critique, then this would indicate that the moral has no relevancy to the sexual. Is this your position?

2. If "consent" trumps the moral, in what other ways then is consent the principle element in any ethical dilemma or situation? Is group suicide (The People's Temple, Heaven's Gate etc.) then legitimate (should it simply be allowed to occur, without intervention, if prior knowledge is available)?

If a husband and wife consent to engage in "swinging" (wife/husband swapping), does this evacuate all questions of morality from the situation, simply upon the basis of the consent alone? Further, if it destroys their marriage, lives, relationships with their children, or leads to violence/murder, does the concept of "consent" mitigate the damage done?

If I consent to something that, as time passes, I see debases, degrades, dehumanizes, and minimizes my life and happiness, does the fact that I consented to enter into that practice or lifestyle somehow justify the practice of lifestyle as if the suffering and pain that are its effects were nothing more than coincidental phenomena, unconnected to the practice/lifestyle itself?

What you appear to be doing here is substituting the concept of "consent" for the concept of "morality" and I'm not at all sure that choice, per se, can justify any specific choice.

[_Drifting]

Droopy:

What's your objection to pornography? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then the pornographic arts are one of the greatest gifts that God has given us, to be partaken of in the spirit of joy and thanksgiving.

ahh, the ever faithful reliance on the "consenting adult" argument. I guess your position on People v. Jovanovic.
But what say you as to the "age" of consent. Seemingly the law is only applicable on that point and no other, barring your proposed catch-all of mutually consenting adults. I mean the same society that would legislate society surely can't appropriately legislate age of consent.
Do you stand in support of incest? such as a Father being able to marry his daughter, if they were both consenting adults? How about allowing polygamy?
And obviously prostitution, when it is mutually consented, does NOT violate a woman's right to physical and moral integrity; because the alienation of woman’s sexuality that is appropriated, debased and reduced to a commodity to be bought and sold is a myth. Not to mention the fable of increased disease risks within society.

why would you consider pornography one of the "greatest gifts that God has given us"?
exactly what makes porn so great for you?

We're Joseph Smith and Helen Mar Kimball consenting adults?