can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...

What is right? Is there right? Are you right?

Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...

Post by mookalovesgloop on Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:26 pm
([msg=69815]see Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...[/msg])

your post seems to reinforce the point that homosexual inclinations are not normal sorry

there has to be an imbalance within the body, like you said an imbalance in sex hormones or a psychological coping mechanism after a traumatic event...

continuity is the quintessential purpose of life..the whimsical flights of fancy and yearnings that people are so easily hypnotized by are the lower qualities of man and are actually intended to be overcome/sublimated...that includes resisting all actions/urges that don't serve our higher purpose and contribute to our longevity (as a collective)...in other words, contrary to what TV would have us all think, you CAN'T just do what you wanna do and think there won't be repercussions....

but now this is kind of entering territory i didn't want to tread on myself...at the end of the day no one really makes the rules...to you your way of life, to me, mine....

peace and blessings
mooka
Image
gloop!
User avatar
mookalovesgloop
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...

Post by nigelpurc on Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:49 pm
([msg=69816]see Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...[/msg])

Gay is not "normal" in the sense that most people aren't gay, but is perfectly acceptable and there are biological bases for it is all I am saying. There are less gay people than straight people fact. It is natural for some people to be gay fact, but controversial. Gay people should not be discriminated against since it is not their choice to be the way they were born.

Gay is not a disease like having O- blood type isn't a disease you can't see it, but is part of who you are.

Also i regret typing the psychological argument. bad point but it happens

Yep to each his own.
They sent me to be a ring leader, but I just joined the circus.
User avatar
nigelpurc
New User
New User
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...

Post by weekend hacker on Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:09 pm
([msg=69918]see Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...[/msg])

mookalovesgloop wrote:of course i'm aware that there are instances in nature where the circumstances demand that accommodations be made so that life can go on. however i'm sure that we can both agree that humans, as a norm do NOT reproduce via parthenogenesis or any of the other methods that you enumerated...so i think that's comparing apples and oranges. furthermore sexual action and attraction between human partners is accompanied with emotional and social complexities that make a comparison of the two even more far-fetched.


I was not sugesting that people can reproduce without both a male and a female(although I did state that they don't necessarily have to see each other anymore to get it done).
But my reference to nature is mainly to point out that it happens in nature.
I'd like to make clear what I understand under natural; existing in or produced by nature : not artificial
An example:
Cancer is natural, animals get it without any human contact or contact with pollutants.
At the same time, getting cancer from overexposure to certain types of radiation would not be natural, if that radiation does not normally occur on planet earth without being created by a human.(or chemicals, or any other number of man made substances/behavior that seem to increase the odds at cancer)
Is this not what we understand under natural? If not I should probably use a different word to describe what I meant.
Side note: cancer is nasty and although part of nature, its fair to say its one of the bad parts.

As to these "accommodations", if you read the wiki article I linked you'll find that a lot of the homosexual behavior it describes(of species that can't reproduce with the same sex) are not just of necessity(like a lack of females). An example would be a giraffe that has a male companion, has sex with said companion and ejaculates inside the companions asshole. This giraffe would still sometimes also have sex with a female, but 9 out of 10 times he'll be riding his male pall. In the continuity of species debate, this behavior would be enough to ensure offspring while at the same time he gets lots of sex with some guy-giraffe he seems to really like.
Another example would be certain species of apes, where sex is part of their social interactions and it doesn't really matter to them if its gay or not.

mookalovesgloop wrote:even in countries like say india or china where the male to female ratio is grossly disproportionate, we don't see women sprouting penises and compensating for the inequality...considering that there ARE species even lower than ours in the scale of evolution that can do just that, i can't believe that's by accident or because of any deficiency in our species!
weekend hacker wrote: And isn't that...the point of creating life, to have it somehow be like you.. only better?


no! the idea that our children are "ours" is an egoistic one and an illusion...each person has their own purpose and destiny, their parents are simply the vehicles through which they are manifested in their physical form and our job is to care for and nurture our offspring so that they will successfully function to give back to the whole when they are adults...

But we do, obviously not in the form of spouting a penis. But in some countries with a more disproportionate ratio, we see more boys turning themselves into girls or girls turning themselves into boys. In some of those places it is culturally accepted to do this, sometimes even forced by parents :s
I wouldn't call not being able to change sex as a deficiency, we as a species are incapable of changing/regrowing anything after its been made.(note female and male genitalia start off the same in the womb, but then form in either one or the other(or something else..))
I'd like to be able to regrow a limb if I lost it like a lizard though, I'd be into all kinds of dangerous stuff.

As to the babies, what difference does it make if a gay guy puts his sperm in a woman that will have no part in the actual raising of the kid? Seems that just like the gay giraffe he's working toward getting his alloted 2.3 children and actually raising them too. Seems like he would be doing his part towards ensuring the kid will grow up into a functioning member of society. Even if he adopts it seems legit to me.
This is why I mentioned that education is also important and not just genetics. Even without a genetic connection a kid you raise is yours, you'll have thought it everything it knows and it will have learned from your mistakes. People are more then just dna, we are smarter then cavemen not because of a different brain but because we have more information to go on, better languages to communicate those ideas with and these days we can even do it electronically. We are smarter because we have more access to knowledge, and passed on better methods of learning. Homosexual people are just as capable(if not better) at doing this than anyone else. And no mater how the kid was born, it came with a full set of blue prints just like everyone else, it just might not have been written by his parents.

I think that creating life, any kind of life, is more then just a dna donation and appropriate incubator. It requires you to protect and nurture it for at least as long until it can set about creating its own offspring.
And believe it or not, every human ever born(including homosexuals, or those raised by homosexuals) came from 2 sets of dna, 1 male and 1 female. I don't see how homosexuality would somehow change this.

mookalovesgloop wrote:
weekend hacker wrote: a virus or worse a baby is something you're stuck with for life


wow, really? i swear i mean no offense, but this remark makes me question how your values are lined up....

Babies are a responsibility and drain on resources that I'm not yet willing to commit to(possibly in the hopes of having a better life to give a potentially future kid). As to a virus, the only responsibility you gain is not giving it to someone else... seems easy enough.

nigelpurc wrote:Gay is not "normal" in the sense that most people aren't gay, but is perfectly acceptable and there are biological bases for it is all I am saying. There are less gay people than straight people fact. It is natural for some people to be gay fact, but controversial. Gay people should not be discriminated against since it is not their choice to be the way they were born.

Gay is not a disease like having O- blood type isn't a disease you can't see it, but is part of who you are.

Also i regret typing the psychological argument. bad point but it happens

Yep to each his own.

^- agree with everything mentioned.
And as mentioned above, although maybe not the "norm" it is natural. And chances are there will always be more straight people than gay people.

As I've been defending homosexuality in this debate for several posts, I should probably disclose that I am not gay. For some reason girls have an effect on me that no guy ever can.
I can't help it, its how I was born. But I won't apologize for it either.
(side side note; I'm not an ugly guy and would probably get layed a lot more if I was gay and didn't keep getting my heart broken by members of the opposite sex.)
<Yoda> if someone says something i don't like, i ban him, ban whoever defends him, and then ban the witnesses...
User avatar
weekend hacker
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...

Post by pretentious on Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:05 am
([msg=69963]see Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...[/msg])

I didn't read this thread too deeply but just a thought on homosexuality being normal. In eary human civilisation and in the current animal kindom, Evolution rulled that the specimins able to adapt to survive and reproduce are kept in the gene pool and the ones unable to do so will be weeded out. You could argue about homosexuality not fitting into this but you could also argue that such an arguement is usless in todays world. I would hope that modren society takes care of people with physical, mental and any other short comings that make them, in an evolutionary sense, unfit. So are we not cheating nature in this day and age? The way i see it is who really cares any more. If you're gay, give me a shout. I'm not but i know someone who is ;) love is free, fun and healthy <3 peace
Goatboy wrote:Oh, that's simple. All you need to do is dedicate many years of your life to studying security.

IF you feel like exchanging ASCII arrays, let me know ;)
pretentious wrote:Welcome to bat country
User avatar
pretentious
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:48 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...

Post by not_essence2 on Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:03 pm
([msg=70543]see Re: can of worms, i'd like to introduce you to can opener...[/msg])

Homosexuality is only not normal in that it lies at the far end of the bell curve. Besides, I'm pretty sure it isn't a choice to be homosexual or not. It's a choice whether or not to have a homosexual relationship. However, it isn't a choice to like a member of the same sex or opposite sex.
not_essence2
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Previous

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests